
_. J'fWV ^ 



PRESENTED i!Y 



/^ _ 
3 c.:^ 



THE SELF-RECONSTRUCTION OF MARYLAND 
i864-i8(:)7 



SERIES XXVII NoS. 1-2 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 

IN 

Historical and Political Science 

UnJer the Direction of the 

Departments of History, Political Economy, and 
Political Science 



THE SELF-RECONSTRUCTION OF 
MARYLAND, 1864-1867 



BY- 
WILLIAM STARR MYERS, PH.D. 

Preceptor in History', Princeton University. 



BALTIMORE 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 

PtJBLlBMJO MONTMLr 

January- February, 1909 






Copyright 1909 by 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 



PRESS OF 

The New Era Printing Compan 
Lancaster, pa. 



CONTENTS. 



chapter i. 
chapti:r ii. 
chaptkr iii. 



CHAPTER IV. 
CHAPTI-R V. 
CHAPTKR VI. 



The Union Party in Controi ^) 

National and State Politics in 1865 28 

Formation of the " Democratic-Conserva- 
tive" Party and Defeat of tiif "R.\r>- 

icALS " 40 

The Reform Legislature of 1867 So 

The Constitutional Convention 113 

Self-Reconstruction CoMi-i.f th»— C(in<.kkss 
Declines to Interfere 



PREFACE. 



In the year k^di I i)ul)lishc(l in tlie Johns IlnPKiNS 
Studies (Scries XIX) a monograph upon the subject of 
the Maryland constitution of 1864. Tlic present study is 
a continuation of the earher work in point of time, an<l I 
have endeavored to show the method by which Maryhmd 
entered upon a process of self-reconstruction during the 
years 1864 to 1867, and the relation of this movement to 
national i)olitics. 

It is with pleasure that I acknowledge my great indebted- 
ness to Professors John Martin X'incent and Charles M. An- 
drews, and to Dr. Bernard C. Steiner, of the Johns Hop- 
kins University, to my relatives Mr, Isaac T. Norris, Mr. J. 
Olney Norris, and Mr. W. Starr Gephart, of Baltimore, 
and to numerous surviving leaders of the period, for their 
unfailing counsel, and for aid in opening up new and valu- 
able sources of information. I have also availed myself of 
the kind help of Mr. George \V. McCreary, Librarian of 
the Marvland Historical Society, on numerous occasions. 

W. S. M. 

Princeton, N. J. 



THE SELF-RECONSTRUCTION OF 
MARYLAND. 1864-1867. 

CHAPTKR \. 
Tin-: Union Party in Control. 

The late autumn of the year 1864 found the Union men 
strongly intrenched in power in Maryland. Aided by the 
sympathy of the national government — Ixith active and 
passive — they had during the preceding six months electetl 
a state convention, formed a new constitution which alx>l- 
ished slavery and made many radical changes in the govern- 
ment, and accomplished its adoption at the polls. 

A narrow majority of 375 out of a total of 50.073 votes 
cast had been secured for the constitution only by the some- 
what doubtful expedient of permitting Maryland soldiers in 
the field to vote on the question, their overwhelming ap- 
])roval altering the adverse result in the State at large.' 
But the Union party leaders felt no uneasiqcss as far as the 
future was concerned, for the constitution of k%4 was fle- 
signcd, rightly or wrongly, not only to free the slaves but to 
secure a permanent hold of the party in power. 

This element was known as the " Union " party during 
the war, and was composed of the more loyal and active 
citizens of the State, who not only desired that Maryland 
shouUl " stand by the Union," but believed that the South 
should be concpicretl and that President Lincoln and the 
national administration should be given hearty and un- 
swerving support. The party included men who liad been 
of various political aft'diations in times past, and it held 

'See the writer's monoRraph on "The Mar>l.-ind ' >f 

1864" (Johns Hopkins Studies, Series XIX, Nos. ^y ■'•d 

account of the political conditions in the State duruiK ihc >cur« 
186J-4. 

9 



lO The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

together fairly well in spite of radical differences of opinion 
on many topics of state and national policy. The Re- 
publican party did not exist under that name till at least 
a year after the close of the war, and the process of its 
formation will be shown in the events about to be narrated. 
The Democratic party in the State, defeated and discred- 
ited, still kept up all the active opposition of which it was 
capable. It condemned the policies of Lincoln and his ad- 
ministration, and more or less acknowledged the right of 
the Southern States to secede, though all the while protest- 
ing its loyalty to the Union, and its hope that Maryland 
would remain in the old federation. 

The new constitution is worthy of careful attention. 
The Union party based their hopes on those provisions which 
were designed to exclude from the franchise all Southern 
sympathizers and other disloyal persons, and furthermore 
they intended so to carry out its mandate for a registration 
of the voters of the State^ that their opponents would be 
further rendered powerless at the polls. 

Article I, Section 4, provided that 

"no person who has at any time been in armed hostility to the 
United States, or the lawful authorities thereof, or who has been 
in any manner in the service of the so-called ' Confederate States 
of America,' and no person who has voluntarily left this State and 
gone within the military lines of the so-called ' Confederate States 
or armies' with the purpose of adhering to said States or armies, 
and no person who has given any aid, comfort, countenance or sup- 
port to those engaged in armed hostility to the United States, or 
in any manner adhered to the enemies of the United States, either 
by contributing to the enemies of the United States, or unlawfully 
sending within the lines of such enemies money or goods, or letters, 
or information, or who has disloyally held communication with the 
enemies of the United States, or who has advised any person to 
enter the service of the said enemies, or aided any person so to 
enter, or who has by any open deed or word declared his adhesion 
to the cause of the enemies of the United States, or his desire for 
the triumph of said enemies over the arms of the United States, 
shall ever be entitled to vote at any election to be held in this State, 
or to hold any office of honor, profit or trust under the laws of this 

'Art. I, Sec. 2. 



The ritton Party in Control. il 

State, unless since sucli unlaw ful acts he shall have vnliinlanly en- 
tered into the military service of the United States, and been honor- 
ably discharged therefrom, or shall be on the day of election, actually 
and voluntarily in such service, or unless he shall lie restored to his 
full rights of citizenship by an act of the General Assembly passed 
by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house." 

AgaJJi, every voter was rcquirctl to take tlie following 

so-calk-(l "iron-dad" oath (same section): — 

" I do swear or afTirm that I am a citizen of the United States, 
that I have never given any aid, countenance or support to those 
in armed hostility to the United States, that I have never expressed 
a desire for the triumph of said enemies over the arms of the 
United States, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the 
United States and support the Constitution and laws thereof as the 
supreme law of the land, any law or ordinance of any State to the 
contrary notwithstanding; that I will in all respects demean myself 
as a loyal citizen of the United States, and I make this oath or 
affirmation without any reservation or evasion, and believe it to be 
binding on me." 

Furthermore, the same article jirovidcd that 

"any person declining to take such oath shall not be alIowe<l to 
vote, but the taking of such oath shall not be deemed conclusive 
evidence of the right of such person to vote; and any person swear- 
ing or affirming falsely shall be liable to penalties of pcrjur)-. and 
it shall be the duty of the proper officers of registration to allow 
no person to be registered until he shall have taken the oath or 
affirmation above set out, and it shall be the duty of the Judges of 
Election in all their returns of the first election held under this 
Constitution to state in their said returns that every person who 
has voted has taken such oath or affirmation." 

A Special oath of allegiance was required' of every i>cr- 
.<^on holding office under the constitution or laws of the 
State, which included this additional test: — 

"That I have never directly or indirectly, by word, act or deed, 
given any aid. comfort or encouragement to those in rebellion against 
the United States, or the lawful authorities thereof; but that I have 
been tnily and loyally on the side of the United States against those 
in armed rebellion against the United States; and I do further 
swear or affirm that I will to the best of my abilities protect and 
defend the Union of the United States; and not allow the same 



•Art. I, Sec. 7- 



12 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

to be broken up and dissolved, or the Government thereof to be 
destroyed, under any circumstances, if in my power to prevent it; 
and that I will at all times discountenance and oppose all political 
combinations having for their object such dissolution or destruction." 

The constitution directed,* in addition, that the legisla- 
ture should pass laws requiring the voter's oath to be taken 
by " the president, directors, trustees, or agents of corpora- 
tions created or authorized by the laws of this State, teach- 
ers or superintendents of the public schools, colleges, or 
other institutions of learning; attorneys-at-law, jurors, and 
such other persons as the General Assembly shall from 
time to time prescribe." Moreover, a very dangerous power 
was placed in the hands of the judges of election, who 
alone were permitted to decide as to what was " conclusive 
evidence " of the right of a person to vote. The sinister 
effects of this provision soon made themselves felt, and as 
we shall see, almost led to bloodshed in the exciting days 
that followed. 

The aspect of military affairs in the South at this time 
could only add to the confidence of the Union men of Mary- 
land. It was during the autumn of 1864 that Grant, after 
the awful slaughter of the Wilderness and Cold Harbor, 
was at last tightening his grip on Lee at Richmond and 
Petersburg. Sherman, by his masterful campaign from 
Resaca to Atlanta, overcame the brilliant strategy of Johns- 
ton and the reckless bravery of Hood, and entered upon his 
" March to the Sea." Sheridan defeated Early and drove 
him out of the Shenandoah Valley, and finally, to crown 
all, Thomas annihilated Hood's army at Nashville. Surely 
the Confederacy was in its death-throes and the Union 
would be saved. This was no time to look for weak-kneed 
sympathy with rebellion. 

An election for national and state officials was to take 
place on November 8, 1864. Governor Augustus W. Brad- 
ford on November 3 issued a proclamation or open letter 
addressed to the " Judges of Election," giving it as his opin- 
ion that this would be the first election under the new con- 

* Art. Ill, Sec. 47. ' ' 



The [ 'iiion Party in ( Onlrol. i 3 

stituiioii, .iikI saying that it was ol)li;jati)ry upon the- jmlgcs 
to observe the re(|iiirenicnts and achninister the test oath to 
all ap|)lying to vote' 

A large number of these officials who were to conduct the 
election in Baltimore City, said to have been alxDUt one third 
of the total for that district, held a meeting in the criminal 
court room on November 3. and unanimously decided to 
administer the oath to all voters. This oath was not to be 
taken as conclusive evidence of loyalty, but in addition citi- 
zens were to be sworn to give true answers to such other 
questions as should be propounded to thcni, in order to 
satisfy the judges of their right to the ballot.^ A second 
and more largely attended meeting of the judges was held 
in the same place on November 7 to consider the question 
which had arisen and caused some controversy, as to wheth- 
er they had the right to commit for perjury, and if so. 
whether or not they should proceed to use it. .After some 
debate, it was decided to leave this (juestion to individual 
discretion, but to keq) a list of the rejected votes for future 
action." This matter seems in the end to have made little 
trouble at the election, which was very quiet, many iM?rsons 
of doubtful patriotic status refraining from an attem[)t to 
vote. There were few arrests by order of the judges." 

Great interest in this election was aroused by the fact 
that not only was a full state ticket to be voted upon, but 
electors for president and vice-president also were to \k 
chosen. The Union party ratified the national Republican 
nominations of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, and 
held its state convention on October iH. 1864. in TemiK-r- 
ance Temple, P.altimore. A very patriotic platform was 
adopted, declaring the determination to " stand by the Ad- 
ministration until this wicked rebellion has l>eai crushed 

*Bf executive proclamation of 0> 
Nov. I, 1864. 

• naltiniorc American. Nov. 4. 1864; .'^nn, N.n 5 .it'..l S, 1.S/V4 
' .Aincrican, Nov. 4; Sun. N<^v, 5. 18^x4. 

' .Anirrican. Nov. 8; Sun. Nov. S. 18(14. Sec al«o Sun for Nov. 
5 and 7 for various arjfiimcnts on the subject. These two Balti- 
niorc papers were the "organs" of their respective political parties. 

• .Sun. Nov. (>. iH(\4 



14 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

out, and every Rebel made to bow in submission to the Con- 
stitution and the laws of the land, and every foot of territory 
brought under the dominion of the Federal Government." 
Candidates were nominated for all the state offices,^" headed 
by Thomas Swann of Baltimore City for governor, and Dr. 
Christopher C. Cox of Talbot County for lieutenant-gov- 
ernor. The Democratic party made its nominations through 
its state central committee, which met in Baltimore on Oc- 
tober 2y, and arranged a ticket including Judge Ezekiel F. 
Chambers of Kent County for governor, and Oden Bowie 
of Prince George's County for lieutenant-governor.^^ 

The result of the election was, as had been expected, a 
victory for the Union party, the vote being as follows: for 
governor, Swann, 40,579, Chambers, 32,068; Swann's ma- 
jority, 851 1. For lieutenant-governor. Cox, 41,828, Bowie, 
32,178. Lincoln carried the State by 7432 majority, and for 
Congress, Edwin H. Webster, of Harford County, Charles 
E. Phelps of Baltimore City, and Francis Thomas of Alle- 
gany County were successful in the second, third and 
fourth districts respectively. The Democrats, however, 
carried two districts, electing Hiram McCullough of Cecil 
County in the first,^^ and Benjamin G. Harris of St. Mary's 
County in the fifth.^^ 

In the General Assembly of the State, the Union party 
secured a large majority in the House of Delegates,^* but 
the results of the election showed that the membership of 
the Senate would stand — Democrats, 13, Union party, 11. 
Fortunately for the latter, W. M. Holland, Democratic 
senator-elect from Dorchester County, resigned on Novem- 
ber 15, saying that circumstances of a domestic character, 
beyond his control, made it extremely inconvenient for him 

" American, Oct. 19 ; Sun, Oct. iQ and 20, 1864. 

" Sun and American, Oct. 28, 1864. 

" " Eastern Shore " of Maryland. 

"This district, largely in the southern part of the State, was 
called by the American the "political Egypt of Maryland." For 
official returns of the election see American, Nov. 29, 1864, and 
January 11, 1865; Sun, Nov. 29, 1864; Scharf, History of Maryland, 
III, 642-643. 

" Union 54, Democratic 26. 



The Union Part\ in Control. 



»5 



to serve." A special election was held on December 23, 
to fill the vacancy, and Thomas K. Carroll, the l'nif>n can- 
didate, was elected by a good majority.'" This made a tic 
on a party vote, but the deciding vote would be cast by Lieu- 
tenant-Governor Cox. In spite of test oaths, partizan 
judges of election, and the suppf)rting influence of the na- 
tional government, the Democratic party in Maryland had 
made a fairly good showing, and there was a possibility 
of the Union control being shaken, or even broken, at 
any time. This was evidently realized, and efforts were at 
once made by the leaders of the latter party to gtiard 
against any such contingency. An editorial in the Haltimore 
American on the preceding October 19 had said : — 

" It is of the utmost importance that the control of the affairs of 
Maryland should be in the hands of capable, honorable, and loyal 
men, who will administer them, not only to the direct benefit of the 
State itself, but with regard to the maintenance and prosperity of 
the entire Union. The fortunes of Mar)'land and of the Union are 
indissolubly linked together, and to fill the State offices with men 
who have the integrity of the whole Union at heart is the true 
way to advance the interests of the State itself." 

This statement voices the opinion of the more sober and 
responsible leaders in the Union cause, and gives a very 
fair idea of the principles upon which they based their 
actions during the political struggles of the following two 
years. 

The General Assembly met at Annapolis on January 4, 
1865. In his message'' Governor Bradford recommended 
for passage various measures designed to earn*- out certain 
provisions of the new constitution, and in addition he de- 
sired that action be taken looking toward the procuring of 
compensation from the national government for slaves 
emancipated under the state constitution, in accordance 
with IVesident Lincoln's message of March 6. i8('j2. Also, 
he argue<l saisibly that " .some other time and tribunal than 
the day and Judges of Election " be provided, to detemiinc 



American and Sun, Nov. 18, 1864. 

Sun, Dec. \2 and 29, 1864; American, Tan. 6, |8<>5 

Documents of House of Delegates. 1865. Doc. .V. 



1 6 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

who may vote under the new laws and regulations. The 
neglect on the part of the legislature of this common-sense 
matter of justice and order was another cause of the tur- 
moil and trouble of the succeeding years. 

According to Article II, Sections i and 2, of the new 
constitution, the term of office of Governor Swann and 
Lieutenant-Governor Cox was to commence on January 
II, 1865, but the new executive was not to enter upon the 
discharge of his duties until the expiration of the term for 
which Governor Bradford had been elected. The latter 
had been inaugurated on January 8, 1862, hence he held 
office till January 10, 1866, and continued the able adminis- 
tration he had given the State during the preceding years 
of trial and perplexity. 

The inauguration of the new executive and his subordi- 
nate took place in the senate chamber at Annapolis on 
the appointed day. Governor Swann's inaugural address^* 
called upon the legislature to " forget the dissensions and 
heart-burnings of the past, and come together once more, 
in a spirit of conciliation and harmony, to give our best en- 
ergies, as one party, to the work of reconstruction and re- 
organization upon which we are entering with such pros- 
pects of admitted and assured success." He favored for- 
eign colonization of negroes, recommended an attempt to 
procure national compensation for the slaves, and signifi- 
cantly closed as follows : — 

" It is not a very agreeable reflection to the State of Maryland, 
in looking back upon the past, that many of her citizens have enter- 
tained, and not infrequently expressed sympathies vi^ith the objects 
of this rebellion. Such evidences of disaffection at the South have 
been summarily dealt with heretofore, by the offer of the alternative 
of the oath of allegiance to the so-called ' Confederate States,' or 
prompt expulsion beyond their lines. The recognition of such a rule 
here would doubtless have been received as in the highest degree 
tyrannical and oppressive. It is hardly reasonable to expect, how- 
ever, that this Government will permit itself to be sacrificed by those 
upon whom it has a right to rely, and who have made their election 
to share the protection of its laws. In standing by the Union, 

"House Docs., Doc. C. 



The Union Party in Control. \y 

Maryland will know how lo discriminate between its friends and 
enemies, and tlic time has passed when those who really desire its 
dissolution will he permitted to make a virtue of their disloyally, 
or to claim participation in the political power of the State. Dif- 
ferences of opinion upon National and State politics may exist with- 
out treason; but the paramount obligation of loyalty cannot be 
compromised, and the citizen who turns away from his duty of 
allegiance to his Government — no matter upon what pretext — for- 
feits the privileges which it confers, and the protection which at- 
taches to the rights of citizenship." 

Lieutenant-Governor Cox initncdiattly cnttTcd ujH)n his 
duties as president of the Senate, the office of heutenant- 
govemor having been created by the constitution of 1864. 
The Senate on I'Vbruary 14, by a vote of 11 yeas to 10 
nays, unseated, on the ground of disloyahy. Littleton Mac- 
Hn, Democratic senator from Howard County, and liis Rc- 
pubhcan opponent, Hart B. Holton, was declared elected.'* 
Samuel A. Graham of Somerset County contested upon the 
same grounds the seat of Levin L. Waters, the Demo- 
cratic senator from that county, but the matter was deferred 
to the next session of the legislature in order that further 
testimony in the case might be taken, and was finally 
dropped.-"' perhaps in consideration of the fact that a Union 
party majority in the Senate was now secureil. 

Turning our attention to the work of the legislative ses- 
sion, we find that on February i Governor Bradford sub- 
mitted to both houses the thirteenth amendment to the 
Constitution of the L'nited States. It was advanced to 
its third reading on the same day by the House of Delegates, 
passing its second reading by a vote of 53 yeas to 24 nays. 
The Senate referred it to a committee and on I'ebruary 3 
finally passed it by a strict party vote of 1 1 affirmative 
from the Union party, 10 negative from the Democrats. 
The House immediately passed it on its final ' 'v '>» " - 
clamation,'* 



"Senate Jour, 1865, 115-117. For testimony, etc., >cc Sciuie 
Docs., 1865. Docs. E, G and H. 

"Senate Jour, 343; Docs. F, I and L. 

"House Jour., 1865, 1.20-1,2.2. 145; Senate Jour., (*)~70\ .Xmerican. 
Feb. 2 and 4, 1865. 

3 



1 8 TJic Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

Some little strife was stirred up over the question of the 
election of a United States senator to fill out the unexpired 
term of the late Thomas H. Hicks, but John A. J. Cres- 
well of the Eastern Shore was finally chosen by a large ma- 
jority on March 9, his leading opponent, Lieutenant- 
Governor Cox, having withdrawn from the contest.-^ 

Two most important bills were passed by the Assembly 
at this session. One was the act deaHng with the status 
of the colored population of the State, and was voted by 
large majorities on March 24.-^ " All the disabiUties 
which had necessarily attached to the negro as a consequence 
of the institution of slavery were removed, with two ex- 
ceptions, one disqualifying negroes from being witnesses 
in cases where white men were concerned, and the other 
authorizing negroes to be sold for crime for the same period 
that a white man might be confined in the penitentiary for 
the same offence."-* 

The other bilP^ was to provide for the registration of the 
voters of the State according to the requirements of the 
new constitution. It was reported in the House of Dele- 
gates, on March 8, 1865, and after a hard struggle against 
it on the part of the opposition it was passed on March 22, 
by the vote of 51 yeas to 23 nays. The Senate,-" after more 
vain opposition on the part of the Democrats, passed it 
finally on March 24, by a vote of 13 to 6.-^ This act, 
famous in the history of the State, which formed a 
center for most of the political strife of the period, provided 
that the governor was to appoint three citizens " most 
known for loyalty, firmness and uprightness " as registers in 
each ward or election district, also three men to register the 
soldiers and sailors of the State, who were to visit the sev- 
eral regiments, camps and hospitals, and have the results 
placed upon the books of the various districts. " From 

^ House Jour., 386-387; Senate Jour., 209; American, March 3, 7, 
8, 9, 10, 1865. 

^Senate Jour., 385-386; House Jour., 752-753. 

-* Quoted from Sun of Jan. 11, 1867. 

=' Statutes of 1865, Ch. CLXXIV. 

^' Senate Jour., 357-369. 

^ House Jour., 1865, 375, 585-600, 627, 736. 



The Union Party in Control. I9 

tlicse lists, entry on which was in(lispcnsal)Ic in order to exer- 
cise suffrage, they were to exchide all disloyal persons, and 
might even refuse to permit them to register, after taking 
the oath of allegiance."-" 

To these officers of registration was further given*' power 

" to compel the attendance of witnesses for the purpose of ascer- 
taining the qiialilicntions or disqualifications of persons rejfistercd ; 
they sliall have power to issue summons, attachments and commit- 
ments of any Sheriff or Constahlc, who shall serve such process, as 
if issued hy a Judge of the Circuit Court, or a Justice of the Peace, 
and shall receive the same fees and in the same manner as allowed 
hy law in State cases." 

The intent of the act was well summed up in an editorial 
of the Baltimore Sun of July 11, 1865, as follows: — 

" It will be seen that the question of the right of suffrage under 
the Constitution and the law, is left entirely to the discretion and 
judgment of the various officers of registration, who are to be ap- 
pointed by the Governor, in the city and counties, from which judg- 
ment there is no appeal — and the disqualification is perpetual unless 
the person is restored to civil rights through military service or a 
vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each House of the 
General .\ssemhly." 

The following clause included in the bill as originally re- 
ported to the Mouse of Delegates was strickoti nut by a 
majority of only one vote in that body i"*" — 

"Section 19, Be it enacted. That the officers of uv;i-u.i; .n i.i 
the purpose of ascertaining more fully whether any person is dis- 
qualified under the fourth section of Article first [of] the Consti- 
tution, shall, if such person's right is challenged, or they have not 
personal knowledge, propound the following among other questions: 
Have you ever given aid to the rebellion by advice, by giving or 
sending itiformation? have you ever given or sent money, clothing, 
provisions, medicine or any munitions of war to persons engaged 
in the rebellion? have you ever given shelter or protection to persons 
engaged in the rebellion? have you ever advised or encouraged any 
person to enter the rebel service? have you ever assisted any one 



"Steiner, Citizenship and Suffrage in Maryland. 47--4S. 

-Sec. 13. 

"■'To strike out." yeas 35. nays .y. Jour. House of Delegates, 
1865. 609. Docs. House of Delegates. D«k. VV. Also sec Sun. July 
II, 1865; Scharf, History of Maryland. HI, 6()8-6t«> 



20 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

to enter such service by furnishing them with money, provisions, 
advice, letters or information? have you ever in conversation or by 
writing, justified those engaged in entering into the rebellion? have 
you ever expressed a wish or desire for the success of the rebel 
arms or for the defeat of the Union arms? have you ever rejoiced 
over any of the successes of the rebel arms or defeat of the Union 
arms? have you ever desired or wished that the rebel forces might 
defeat the Union forces ? " 

It would be difficult to imagine a more stringent or dan- 
gerous measure, one more hostile to the idea of a consti- 
tutional and orderly democratic government, or one more 
open to abuse. 

After spasmodic attempts to pass a measure requiring 
the oath of allegiance of all officers of corporations,^^ and 
another calculated to secure compensation for emancipated 
slaves from the United States government,^- but from which 
nothing ever came, the legislature finally adjourned on 
March 27, 1865. 

It is now necessary, in order to make our narrative com- 
plete, to retrace our steps a little in point of time. Dur- 
ing this period the important question of the negro popula- 
tion was agitating the people of Maryland. All slaves had 
become free on November i, 1864, when the constitution 
went into effect, and there were now nearly 90,000 " freed- 
men " to be dealt with, besides a nearly equal number of 
negroes who had been free when abolition was accom- 
plished. ^'^ When we think of this herd of human beings, 
little more than half civilized, poor, ignorant, and helpless, 
suddenly raised in legal status from a position of servitude 
to the proud estate of man, with all the attendant duties and 
obligations, we must realize that they still remained com- 
pletely under the power of the white population. A few 
wished to treat them as being what they were in fact, child- 
ren in intelligence with an almost unlimited potentiality of 
physical power, but the larger number naturally looked upon 
them with the contempt of former masters. Sometimes, at 

^* Senate Jour., 247 ; House Jour., 39. 

''House Jour., 190-191, 32>(>-Z2>7- 

^ See my Maryland Constitution of 1864, 10, for statistics. 



The Union Party im Control. 2 1 

the other extreme, there was foohsh talk alK)Ut immediate 
social and political e(|uality. 

When the October electitm showed the adi^ption of the 
constitution, the major part of the people of Maryland Uiy- 
ally ac(iuiesced in the result, but many of the more tenacious 
slaveholders speeilily took advantage of an old provision in 
the " r.lack Code" of state laws that negro slave children 
coukl be bound out for terms of apprenticeship without the 
consent of their parents. With the more or less o\H:n con- 
nivance of many of the court officials they had the slave 
children whom they owned apprenticed to them for the term 
of their legal minority, and usually with absolute disregard 
of the wishes of the parents, who were so soon to come into 
their natural rights. This was in many cases done before 
the first of November, when constitutional alxilition took 
effect, and before the parents had any legal right to object. 
Even after this date the same practice was continued, negro 
children being in many instances forcibly taken from their 
homes, and all their newly given rights ignored. 

Realizing the danger that a species of slavery or peonage 
would thus be perpetuated in spite of the emancipation 
movement, and being besieged by the negroes and their 
white sympathizers with complaints of illegal treatment, 
Major-General Lew W^allace. commander of the Middle 
Department of the United States Army with headquarters 
in P>altimore. decided to take matters into his own hands 
until the Union party could cause the proper measures of 
protection to be taken at the ensuing session of the General 
Assembly. On Xovembcr 9, 1864, he issuc<l " General 
Orders. .\o. i ij." which created a " Frecdmen's Bureau" 
for the dcjiartment. with Major William M. Este, A. D. C. 
in charge.''* The " Maryland Club House," on the northeast 
corner of Cathedral and I'ranklin Streets. Baltimore, was 
ordered to be used as headquarters of the bureau ami as a 



•* For a more complete account of this matter, and unimpeachable 
testimony that the abovc-mcntionc<l .ihn<os took place, see Clen. 
Wallace's report to the icKi^ta'iirc i>f 1X^15. in Senate Docs. J. See 
also Scharf. History of M.Tryl.ind. III. 5«><-5<». for a somewhat dif- 
ferent account; also daily p.ipcrs of tlie pcritnl. 



22 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

negro hospital, vmder the name " Freedman's Rest."^^ The 
reasons for this action were stated in the following pre- 
amble to the order: — 

" Official information having been furnished, making it clear that 
evil disposed parties in certain counties of the State of Maryland, 
within the limits of the Middle Department, intend obstructing the 
operation, and nullifying, as far as they can, the emancipation pro- 
vision of the New Constitution ; and that for this purpose they are 
availing themselves of certain laws, portions of the ancient slave 
code of Maryland, as yet unrepealed, to initiate as respects the 
persons heretofore slaves, a system of forced apprenticeship ; for this, 
and for other reasons, among them that if they have any legal 
rights under existing laws, the persons spoken of are in ignorance 
of them; that in certain counties the law officers are so unfriendly 
to the newly-made freedmen, and so hostile to the benignant measure 
that made them such, as to render appeals to the courts worse than 
folly, even if the victims had the money with which to hire lawyers; 
and that the necessities of the case make it essential, in order to 
carry out truly and effectively the grand purpose of the people of 
the State of Maryland, . . . [therefore] there should be remedies 
extraordinary for all their [i. e., the freedmen's] grievances, — reme- 
dies instantaneous without money or reward, — and somebody to 
have care for them, to protect them, to show them the way to the 
freedom of which they have yet but vague and undefined ideas." 

The order provided further that all freedmen were to be 
considered under special military protection until the legis- 
lature should by its enactments make such protection un- 
necessary, that provost-marshals in their several districts, 
" particularly those on the Eastern and Western Shores," 
should " hear all complaints made to them by persons 
within the meaning of this order " and " collect and forward 
information and proofs of wrongs done to such persons, 
and generally . . . render Major Este such assistance as he 
may require in the performance of his duty." Finally, 

" lest the moneys derived from donations, and from fines collected, 
prove insufficient to support the institution in a manner correspond- 
ing to its importance. Major Este will proceed to make a list of all 

^^The Maryland Club was considered to be an organization pe- 
culiarly obnoxious to loyal people, on account of the known South- 
ern sympathies of many of its members. This part of the order, 
however, was revoked. 



I Iw ( ninti I'ljrlx in Control. 



'I 



the avowed rebel sympathizers resident in the city of Bahimore. with 
a view to levying such contrihiitions upon them in aid of the ' Frccd- 
man's Rest ' as may he frcim time to time re<|iiircd." 

Early in January, (kncral Wallace alx)lishef| the Freed- 
men's Bureau in Maryland and made his re|K»rt to the fiai- 
eral Assembly. A reading of this report and the d<Kumcnts 
suhinitted therewith should till every fair-niinde<l person 
of today with a deep sym|iathy for the negroes in their help- 
less condition at this time. The details there disclosctl of 
all the suffering, sorrow, and injustice which they endured 
render one heart sick, even though an allowance he made for 
the exaggerations of heated jiartizanship and an excited 
state of public feeling. 

As we have seen.'"' the legislature, in response to the re- 
port, passed a bill removing practically all the disabilities 
from the negro population which had been laid u|xmi them 
under the slave code, and affairs gradually settled them- 
selves acconling to the new economic and social conditions 
which are still in existence today. This readjustment did 
not come all at once, but only after much injustice and 
many wrongs had been committed by both whites and 
blacks.''' Richmond fell before Grant's victorious army 
on April 3. 1865, and by the end of the month both Lee 
and Johnston had surrendered. This was the practical end- 
ing of the military operations of the Civil War. About 
20.000 men from Maryland had taken service in the ar- 
mies of the Confederacy,'"' and the survivors were soon 
paroled and began to return home in large inimlK*rs. The 
Union men were much elated and joined in a hearty cele- 
bration of the national triumph of their cause, but as tlie cx- 
- - _^-_-_ 

"At as late a date as Nov. 1. 1866, Gen. O. O. Howard, chief 
of the national " Freedmen's Bureau." stated in hi* report to the 
secretar>' of war that " frequent cotiiplaints arc received of out- 
rages and atrocities without parallel committed against frecilmen " 
in portions of NIaryland. ReporLs of Sec. of War. .2nd Sess., jgth 
Cong. 750. 

"Scharf. Chronicles of Balliniore. fvjQ : f 
1st Sess.. 40th Cong., I)<K. 27. Mci'hers.in > 
R.l..l!i,iii, 5.XJ) s.iv.. •• Ihe cstima;r ..f .M.irv 



24 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

Confederates began to show themselves about the streets 
and to frequent their old haunts and a large immigration from 
the South, particularly from Virginia, began to set in, this 
feeling gave way to alarm, too often accompanied by signs 
of prejudice and vindictiveness. The party in power at once 
began to foresee and to fear what finally took place — an ac- 
tive coalition between the Democrats and the Southern sym- 
pathizers and the eventual overthrow of the Union party 
in the State. The registration act had been passed just 
in time, and when signs of opposition to it began to appear 
its advocates decided to fight to the last ditch to keep it on 
the statute-books and in active operation. 

The assassination of President Lincoln on April 14, 1865, 
threw the Union people for a time into a panic, and naturally 
increased hostility toward the ex-Confederates, whom they 
imagined to be undertaking a new method of warfare, by 
means of murder and secret criminal intrigue. General 
W. W. Morris, for a short time in command of the Middle 
Department, issued orders on April 15, placing Baltimore 
under stringent martial law, and including a provision that 

"paroled prisoners of war (Rebels), arriving in this department 
are hereby ordered to report at once to the nearest provost-marshal, 
in order that their names may be registered, their papers examined, 
and such passes furnished them as may be necessary for their pro- 
tection. Such prisoners of war will not be permitted to wear the 
uniform of the army and navy of the so-called Confederate States, 
but must abandon their uniforms within twelve hours after report- 
ing to the provost-marshal, and adopt civilian dress."'' 

General Wallace, who resumed command a few days later, 
extended these repressive measures, and was actively assisted 
by the officers of the United States Army stationed in var- 
ious parts of the State. After the death of J. Wilkes Booth 
and the capture of the other conspirators, the military bonds 
were gradually relaxed, the national government wisely 
leaving the settlement of the various difficulties in Mary- 
land to the people of the State. 

As a good illustration of the temper of this particular 

'° Scharf, History of Maryland, III, 650-651. 



The Union Party in Control. 

time, the following is quoted from an editorial iti tlK- i'.a! 
timore American for May (), which was entitled " The lirand 
of Cain." After stating that " JefT " Davis "stands con- 
victed as a common felon " and charging him with a!! 
manner of crimes, it proceeds: — 

"He has sanctioned and commissioned agents of pir.u.. ..;.;,. 
and butchery. He has sent secret employees to throw passenger 
trains from railway tracks, incendiaries to burn Northern cities 
pirates to destroy commerce, to fire merchant vessels, and to 
slaughter their crews. He has stolen the money belonRinR to others, 
and deposited it abroad to his own credit. He has plotted offences 
against society which have no parallels in brutality and outlawry 
in the annals of civilization. And now he is branded as one of the 
infernal cal)al whose intrijfucs, carried on for more than eight 
months, have resulted in the murder of Abraham Lincoln." 

This same journal descrihed the ex-Confederate sohhers 
in Maryland as " defiant and pompous,"*" and stated that 
they strutted around like concjuerors. All sorts of accusa- 
tions were made by this paper against Southerners, even 
charging them with an attempt to introduce yellow fever 
infection from Bermuda into the northern cities.** On May 
9 a leading editorial said : — 

"To the more conspicuous leaders of the Rebellion, civil and mili- 
tary, should be awarded the extreme penalty of the law. Nothing 
short of expiation on the gallows would satisfy the simplest de- 
mands of justice. As to the masses of the people who have l)cen 
so terribly duped by these miscreants, we think there can t)e but 
one feeling, that they have already been subjected to such untold 
losses and sufferings and humiliations that they are fairly entitled 
to executive clemency." 

On April 24. 1865. the first branch of the City Council 
of Baltimore passed resolutions re<|uesting General Wallace 
to close certain " disloyal churches." and thus to " save our 
city from this degradation and shame by removing these 
cessi>ools. the miasma arising from which taints the tnoral 
atmosphere with treason."*' Further resolutions passed the 

-M.iy I. ifV);;. 
" Mav 8. i.%v 

"Jou'nial. 1st Bratich. 1864-5. 470. Also Sclurf. History of Mary- 
land. Ill, 651-654. 



26 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

same day by a unanimous vote protested against allowing 
" Rebels " to return to the city.*^ 

On April 25 a meeting of citizens of Cumberland, Md., 
was held in the market-house, and presided over by the 
mayor. Dr. C. H. Ohr. It was then resolved that " those 
persons who voluntarily left their homes in this county 
[Allegany] and have taken up arms against the Federal 
Government, or otherwise aided the rebellion, shall not be 
permitted to return again amongst us." It was threatened 
that such as returned would be " summarily dealt with," 
and a vigilance committee of twenty-five members was ap- 
pointed, with power to add to this number.^* 

In general, the Union people were not so bitter against 
Confederates from other States as against those from Mary- 
land. Perhaps the fact that the latter might become voters 
under a new regime added to the feelings of hostility. Fin- 
ally, their contention was that " rebels should acknowledge 
they were wrong, if they want to be forgiven."*^ 

Very dififerent was the attitude of the Baltimore Sun, 
the leading Democratic newspaper in the State, and with 
good reason, for it had escaped suppression during the four 
years of war only by a discreet handling of the news, and 
by refraining from editorials for the most part, except on 
such truly non-partizan occasions as Christmas and New 
Year's Day. The Sun now began to pluck up courage as 
the use of the military power lessened, and on May 23 it 
stated that 

" such of our citizens and youth as had strayed away and made 
common cause with the South in rebellion, are now returning, and 
realizing the advantages of the terms of surrender, [are] generally 
willingly renewing their allegiance. No where now are Southern 
men more generously met than in Baltimore." 

Later on, it heartily entered into the movement to raise 
money to aid Southern sufferers from the war, particularly 
those in the Shenandoah Valley. 

"Jour., 468-469, 485. Also see Jour., 2d Branch, 1865, 270, 276, 
288, 305-308, 325-326. 

" American, May i, 1865. 
^° American, May 13, 1865. 



7 7/t' i'nioit I\irty iti Control. 2/ 

As time went on, and the feelinjjs causc«l by the first 
flush of victory |)asse(l away, milder counsels l)ef^an to pre- 
vail amonj; the I'nion j)eople. The City Council of lialti- 
more took care to state that their " anti- Rebel " resolutions, 
lately adojited. did not refer to Southern merchants com- 
ing to the city for purposes of trade, but " only tf) the return 
of those who formerly had a residence among us, but who 
went South to aid in the overthrow of the government. 
It was thought best they be not permitted to return amongst 
us until they came as i)rodigals, seeking, not claiming a home, 
confessing their errors antl asking to be received as re- 
pentant sons."*" Also the American stated on June 20, 
1865, that it was anxious to let the Southern sympathizers 
alone, that it would do so if they kept '* their firoper [wsi- 
tions " and showctl " .some indications of humanity and con- 
trition," and also disavowed any feelings of bigotry or vin- 
dictivencss. Most unfortunately, many of the leaders in 
the I'nion party, as we shall sec, found it to be to their i>cr- 
sonal advantage to keep alive the controversies an<l hatreds 
of the past, for by this means they hoped to overcome all 
opposition both within and without the party. This caused 
the crisis in political aflfairs which came in the year 1866. 



••Jour.. 1st Brancli, 1864-5, 584-586; Jour, and Ppk., 2d Hranch, 
322, 338; .American, May 30, 1865. 



CHAPTER II. 

National and State Politics in 1865. 

The condition of national politics at this time had strong 
influence on the situation in Maryland. Andrew Johnson 
succeeded to the office of president in April, and decided to 
carry out a conciliatory method of executive reconstruction 
of the conquered Southern States, according to the plans of 
his predecessor in office. The mere fact that he was fol- 
lowing in Lincoln's footsteps was for the moment enough 
to satisfy the Union party in Maryland, and the Democrats, 
not forgetting that Johnson had been of their political faith 
before the Civil War, were, most naturally, filled with de- 
light when he assumed a conciliatory attitude toward the 
erring Southern brethren. They were perforce compelled 
to incline toward him politically. Both parties in a measure 
" rested upon their oars " in the State, at the same time 
zealously keeping watch over the President and over the 
political conditions in Maryland. 

Johnson seems early to have realized that he would meet 
strong opposition in Congress from the radical element of 
what was nominally his own party, led by men like Thad- 
deus Stevens and Charles Sumner, and he evidently desired 
to gain enough recruits from his former Democratic friends 
to fill up the gaps in the ranks of his own following in the 
Republican party, in case the extremists should " bolt " 
from his leadership.^ 

Mr. A. Leo Knott, of Baltimore, published a few years 
ago an important article^ on political conditions in Mary- 
land at this period, which deserves special notice on account 
of the significant information given in regard to the rela- 
tions between President Johnson and the Democratic lead- 

^ See Dunning's Reconstruction, Political and Economic, 43-44. 
^ In Nelson's Baltimore, published 1898. 
28 



Xational cjiui Slate Politics in /<SV»s. 29 

crs ill Maryland. Mr. Knott was then, as he has U-cn 
(luring the forty years since that time, a man prominent in 
the councils of the Democratic party, and is in a i)«)sition to 
know whereof he writes. He states that Francis Blair, Sr., 
and his son Montgomery Hlair were " anxious that repre- 
sentatives from Democratic orjjanizations should call on 
President Johnson to assure him of their sympathy and suf>- 
port in the strujXRlc which they saw was imminent and in- 
evitable between him and the Republican Congress oti the 
grave question of the reconstruction of the Southern 
States." So, upon their suggestion and at their instance, a 
committee representing the Democratic state central com- 
mittee of Maryland waited upon the President at Washing- 
ton on July 19, 1865. This committee was composed of 
Colonel William P. Maulsby, of Frederick, Colonel William 
Kimmel. of r.altimore. and Mr. Knott himself. It laid 
before Johnson a memorandum setting forth the political 
conditions in Marjland, and stated that under the registry 
law two thirds of the voters of the State were disfran- 
chised, this number constituting the larger part of the Demo- 
cratic party ; also, that the President's " friends* in the 
Republican party in Maryland must realize the utter help- 
lessness of their cause without the aid of the Demcxratic 
vote, which could not be given without a change in the Con- 
stitution, or a repeal or an essential mo<lification of the 
existing registration laws." 
Mr. Knott continues: — 

" Mr. Johnson listened witli .-mention, .niul at the close assured 
the committee of the interest he felt in the politic.nl sitn.ition in 
M.iryland, and his sympathy with the aims and purposes of the 
committee; that without conmiittinR himself to any definite prop«isi- 
tion. he felt that where there was a community of views, a common 
ground of action could no doubt he reached, l-'or himself, he added, 
that haviuR been a Democrat on principle and conviction, and havinji 
acted with the Republican party only so long as the country was 
at war, and the Union in danger, now that the war was over and its 



•i. e.. the Conservative or Johnson wing of the Union party, which 
during the followiuK year dcserte.l the Radicals and helped to form 
the ■' Democratic-Conservative " party. 



30 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

purpose accomplished, he was in favor of a policy of conciliation. 
. . . Several interviews subsequently took place between President 
Johnson and the members of this sub-committee. And it is but 
just to add that the Democratic party of Maryland owe to the 
memory of that statesman a debt of gratitude for the valuable aid 
he gave to it, at more than one important crisis in the long and 
arduous struggle it maintained for the rights of the people against 
a desperate and an intolerant faction of the Republican party, which 
did not number at any time during its usurpation of power, as the 
election subsequently showed, more than one third of the voters 
of the State.'" 

The state election in the autumn of 1865 was not of great 
importance, only local officers being voted upon, except in 
Baltimore City, where several members of the. legislature 
were to be chosen, and in the second congressional district, 
where a successor was to be elected to fill the place of 
Edwin H. Webster, who had been appointed collector of 
the port of Baltimore. 

The first vague whisperings of a new question could now 
be heard, a question which, along with the registry law, was 
to cause the shipwreck of the Union party. This was negro 
suffrage. It is a fact that by the constitution of 1776 the 
suffrage had been given to all freemen of age in Maryland 
who held a certain amount of property, and some free 
negroes voted in the few years following. An amendment 
to the state constitution, adopted in 1810, limited the right 
of suffrage to the white citizens,^ and under the influence 
of the " Black Code " and the events of the war the people 
of both parties by 1865 had come to look with great aver- 
sion upon negro participation in politics. Consequently, 
when negro suffrage was adopted as a party measure by the 
national Republican leaders, many of the most conservative 
Union men in Maryland went over to the Democratic party. 

According to the terms of the registry law as passed by 
the legislature,^ three registers were to be appointed in each 

*For the complete account of the above see Nelson's Baltimore, 
553-555- 

'Brackett, The Negro in Maryland, 186-187. 

" See pp. 18-20. This was the first registry law ever passed by the 
State of Maryland, see Steiner, Citizenship and Suffrage in Mary- 
land, 47. 



Xalionol ami Slati" Politics in tS6t^. 31 

election district of the State. Governor I'.radfonI seems to 
have had (HftlcuUy in performing his part of the (hity. as 
many of his appointees resigned, and an effort had to l)c 
made to induce others to sink private (Hfferences an<l act 
for the puhhc pood.' However, this Ix-inR accomphshed, 
the question arose as to what means should be taken in 
order to determine the right to vote of people of doubtful 
loyalty, who had nevertheless taken the prescribed " iron- 
clad " oath of allegiance. 

For the purpose of conifiaring their views as to the true 
interpretation of the law, and of adopting a system of regis- 
tration uniform throughout the State with respect to mat- 
ters confided to their discretion and judgment, a state con- 
vention of the officers of registration met on August 2. 1865. 
A list of twenty-five questions to be asked intending 
voters was adopted which formed such a strict catechism 
of political faith and activity that a Democrat who was once 
tainted with a breath of disloyalty would have difficulty in 
ever convincing his partizan judges of his character for 
loyalty. The most searching of these cpiestions were as 
follows : — 

"II. Do you consider the oath ju.st taken as legally and morally 
binding as if administered by a judge of the court or a justice of 
the peace? 

"IX. Have you ever at any time been in armed hostility to the 
United States or the lawful authorities thereof? 

"X. Have you ever been in any manner in the service of the 
so-called 'Confederate States of America'? 

"XII. Have you ever given any aid, countenance or support to 
those engaged in armed hostility to the United States or [tol the 
so-called 'Confederate States of America"? 

"XIII. Have you ever in any manner adhered to the enemies 
of the United States or the so-called ' Confederate States ' or annics? 

"XIV. Have you ever contributed money. gocKis, provisions, 
labor or any such thing, to procure fcmd. clothing, implements of 
war or any such tiling for the enemies of the United States or the 
so-called 'Confederate States' or armies? 

"XV. Have you ever unlawfully sent within the lines of such 
enemies money, goods, letters or infomiation? 



*See American, editorial of July jo, 1865. 



3~2 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

" XVI. Have you ever in any manner disloyally held communi- 
cation with the enemies of the United States or the so-called ' Con- 
federate States ' or armies ? 

" XVII. Have you ever advised any person to enter the service 
of the enemies of the United States, or the so-called ' Confederate 
States' or armies . . . ? 

" XVIII. Have you ever, by any open word or deed, declared 
your adhesion to the cause of the enemies of the United States, or 
the so-called 'Confederate States' or armies? 

" XIX. Have you ever declared your desire for the triumph of 
, said enemies over the armies of the United States? 

" XX. Have you ever been convicted of giving or receiving bribes 
in elections, or of voting illegally, or of using force, fraud or violence 
to procure yourself or any one else nomination for an office? 

" XXI. Have you ever deserted the military service of the United 
States and not returned to the same or reported yourself to the 
proper authorities within the time prescribed by . . . proclama- 
tions . . . ? 

" XXII. Have you ever on any occasion expressed sympathy for 
the Government of the United States during the rebellion? 

" XXIII. During the rebellion, when the armies were engaged 
in battle, did you wish the success of the armies of the United 
States or those of the rebels? 

" XXIV. Have you voted at all the elections held since the year 
1861, and if not, give your reasons? 

" XXV. Have you, in taking this oath or in answering any ques- 
tions propounded to you, held any mental reservation or used any 
evasion whatever? " 

It was decided that the names of all white male persons 
resident in, or temporarily absent from, their district should 
be placed on the registration books, so that the status of all 
those not making application should be permanently fixed 
as disqualified voters. Of course this would disfranchise 
them irretrievably, unless they should make application to 
the legislature for a pardon by a two-thirds vote of that 
body, or enter the military or naval service of the United 
States.® 

The restilt was, that not only were the ex-Confederates 
and Southern sympathizers prohibited from registering, but 
many other citizens of the State made no attempt whatever 
to do so, and an exceedingly small number, in proportion 

* See Sun, Aug. 3, 1865 ; Scharf, History of Maryland, III, 669-670. 



Xalional and State Politics in iS6y ^3 

to tlK- population, wore designated as fjualified voters* In 
the writer's opinion, at least one half of the voters were 
(Hsfranchised, and of tliese an overwhehning |)rop<jrtion 
was Democratic. •" 

It seems certain that a |)art of this inimher was rij!jhtly 
disfranchised. It was, in fact, neither right nor expedient 
that those who had l)een in arms apainst, or in active oppo- 
sition to, the I'nited States government should have the 
ballot given them for some years to come, the length of 
time to be determined by the actions of the ex-Con federates, 
who should have opportunity to show their acceptance of the 
new situation. The radicals in the I'nion party of Mary- 
land had. therefore, a large measure of justice on their side. 
It was rather the extremely .sweeping character of the meth- 
ods used, and their efforts, at times, to maintain party 
supremacy by unjust means, that should be condemned. 

The first serious move against the registry law was made 
in the summer and autumn of 1865 under Democratic 
auspices. Naturally and reasonably, legal means were 
used in order to test the constitutionality of the act. before 
a definite political agitation was worked up against it. Two 
important cases before the State Court of Appeals decided 
the constitutionality of the law. The first was that of 
Ilardcsty 's. Taft (2t^ Md. Reports, 512). Many voters, 
unable to give a satisfactory answer to the list of questions 
decided upon by the convention of the officers of registra- 
tion, were refused enrollment. Therefore, to test this 
action, an injunction was prayed that the registers should 
not hand over, nor the judges of elections receive, the reg- 
istration books, but that the election might be conducted 
according to the law in force up to this time. 

•Sun. July 18 aiul Sept. 2(). ««(>5 

"Says Mr. Ktmtt : "The ntficcrs of roKistration were sw.i>C(l by 
a .spirit of l)ittcr and itncdinpromisinR partisanship .md . . . the Rc- 
pubUcan party was determined to pen>itnate its asceiulaney liy the 
entire disfranchisement, if necessary, of its Democratic opponents." 
Nelson's Baltimore. ^55. The writer would add that Mr. Knott i» 
so parti/an in his opinions that he is apt to cxagKcrate to the detri- 
ment of those who (Hsagreed with him. 



34 T^he Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

It was insisted by the appellants that the new law was 
unconstitutional, since it gave judicial powers to the officers 
of registration, and that the provision of the constitution 
excluding from voting those citizens who could not take the 
required oath was void, as enacting an ex post facto law, 
and hence contrary to the Constitution of the United States. 
It was illegal for the officers of registration to inquire into 
acts done prior to the adoption of the new constitution, and 
they had no right to put questions which tended to incrimi- 
nate voters, nor to exclude them from registration in case 
they should not answer such questions. 

On the eve of the fall election the court decided that it 
would not grant an injunction to the effect that the election 
might be held in a manner different from that designed by 
law. The court held further, that it had no power to give 
authority to the judges of election to receive the ballot of 
a person not on the roll of qualified voters — a ballot not 
only not conferred, but expressly taken away by the Gen- 
eral Assembly. The decision distinctly stated that a court 
of equity could not be invoked to prevent the performance 
of political duties such as those of an officer of registration, 
but that if a citizen should be wilfully, fraudulently or cor- 
ruptly refused a vote by the register, or election judge, he 
might sue for damages at law. 

The second case was that of Anderson vs. Baker {27, 
Md. Reports, 531), in which a mandamus was asked to 
compel a register to place the name of a voter on the lists. 
The appellant claimed that the provisions of the constitu- 
tion and of the registry law were void because unconstitu- 
tional and contrary to the " fundamental principles of jus- 
tice and reason and of American republican government." 
A mandamus was the proper remedy, since a suit for dam- 
ages would not give a wronged person his vote. 

On November 2, 1865, the opinion of the court was 
delivered by Justice Bowie, Justices Cochran, Goldsborough 
and Weisel assenting, and Justice Bartol dissenting. It was 
as follows: The right of suffrage, being the creature of 



Kaliotial and Stale Politics :•■ -^ ■ 

the organic law. may l)c modified or \vitii<n.i\vn kv •ik -ov- 
creigti authority without inflicting any punishment on those 
who arc (hs(|uahficd. The [xiwcr of the registers was a 
pohcc or political power, and hence constitutional." 

In commenting on this decision, the Sun on November 3, 
1865, said that it looked upon the question as a ptjlitical 
rather than a legal one; hence it did not expect any redress 
from the courts. It was rather an opportunity to apf)cal 
to the sense of public justice and political right of the 
people. From now on the DenuKratic party adopted this 
latter method, backed up by a judicious amount of shrewd 
political tactics, with the usual accompaniment of trickery 
and wire-pulling then common to both parties. Meantime, 
however, neither party had waited to see the results of 
the legal contest, but both had made nominations, and con- 
sidering the comparative insignificance of most of the 
offices at stake, the campaign was fairly active and 
interesting. 

The " Unconditional Union City Conventi(Mi." which met 
in Temperance Temple. Baltimore, on July 13. adopted 
resolutions by a majority of alK>ut three to one. endor-^ing 
Andrew Johnson antl his policy. '- 

A meeting of about 1500 citizens of Howard County 
who were in favor of supporting the reconstruction policy 
of the President was held at Clarksville on .Xugust 26. 
Addresses were made by Montgomery Hlair, who attacked 
Secretary Stanton and the Maryland registry law, and by 
W. H. Purnell. A letter was read from Governor Swann. 
who regretted his inability to be present, and praised Presi- 
dent Johnson.'' 

The I'nion convention of the second congressional dis- 
trict met at Broadway Hall. Kast Baltimore, on September 

"I have drawn this .iccotint of the electi<^<' . k.s lir,»cly from 
Dr. B. C. Stciiicr's scholarly little !>ook entith ' Ami Suf- 

frage in Marylaiul. 47-50. Also sec Sun. A J anti J, 

Dec. S: .Xnicrican. Sept' 6 and 15, Oct. Jo, iKi i-. .,». i.^>5. 

"American. July 14. i8r)5. 

"■American. .Aug. 28; Sun, .\ug. 28 and Sept. 14. 1865. 



36 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

26, and unanimously nominated John L. Thomas, Jr., to 
succeed E. H. Webster.^* 

The proceedings of the county conventions of the same 
party are significant, as foreshadowing the varied counsels 
and final disagreement of the next year. Most of them 
passed resolutions endorsing Johnson and opposing negro 
suffrage.^^ Washington County also endorsed the registry 
law, and Dorchester County declared in favor of a moder- 
ate amendment of the same. The radical Union organ, the 
Baltimore American, strongly supported the President, took 
a conservative attitude toward negro suffrage, and was 
heartily in favor of sustaining the registry law as placed 
upon the statute-books.^*^ On September 30 it commented 
on the campaign as follows: — 

" Party spirit is running high, and the party that [formerly] de- 
nounced the President without stint is running a tilt with the party 
which sustained him, for his exclusive possession." 

That this comment was true is shown by the fact that 
the county Democratic conventions generally endorsed 
Johnson and his reconstruction policy, while they con- 
demned the registry law and negro suffrage. 

The Democratic state central committee on September 
2 published in the Baltimore Sun an address to the people 
of Maryland, calling upon the latter to rise up and oppose 
the registry law, which it condemned for being " in marked 
contrast and hostility to the wise and just policy of con- 
ciliation which distinguishes the dealings of President 
Johnson with the Southern States." It was signed by Oden 
Bowie, chairman, and A. Leo Knott, secretary. It is sig- 
nificant that practically all these expressions of Democratic 
opinion were given after July 19, the date of the interview 
with President Johnson at the White House in Washington. 

In a thoughtful and able editorial of July 11 the Sun 
had already foreshadowed the position and policy of the 

" Sun and American, Sept. 27, 1865. 

^ See daily papers of the period for accounts of same. 

" See in particular the issues for July 6, Sept. 14, Sept. 23. 



Xational and State Politics in iS6^. 37 

Democrats and the conservative winp of tlic Union party 
as follows: — 

" It may reasonably be supposed that the framers of the Consti- 
tution and those who legislated to carry out its provisions . . . were 
influcnci-<l more or less by the then existing state of the country, 
torn and (hstracted as it was by civil war. . . . (Hut) the motives 
and purposes which actuated our legislators may now be presumed 
no longer to possess the same force. Tlie General Assembly may 
perhaps, therefore, be brought to consider at an early day . . . (the 
modification or removal of) the constitutional and legal disabilities 
which . . . affect a considerable portion of (the] citizens. The pro- 
vision of the Constitution which empowers the General Assembly 
by a vote of two-thirds of tiic members of Ixjth Houses to restore 
any person to his ' full rights of citizenship,' may, we presume, be 
made applicable to all persons disqualiticd. or to separate daises of 
such, by the passage of a general law." 

The same journal, in its issue for August 31. sai<l that 
should the Rc|)ul)lican party adopt negro sufTrage, it would 
throw President Johnson upon the supjKtrt of the Demo- 
cratic party, with which he was identified for so long, hut 
that it hoped that such a " mischievous policy " would not 
be undertaken. 

Some question arose in the State as to the effect of the 
President's amnesty proclaiuation upon the working of the 
Maryland registry law. Governor Pradford seems to have 
set this matter at rest by an open letter to E. L. I'arker, 
one of the officers of registrati(Mi in Baltimore County, 
dated July 20. 1865. written as an individual citizen, but 
concurred in by .Alexander Randall, state attorney-gen- 
eral. In it he emphatically affirmed that neither the pardon 
by President Johnson nor even an act of Congress could 
make those who had participated in the recent rebellion 
voters of Maryland against the state constitution.'^ 

The committee apj)ointed by Governor Bradford to regis- 
ter all Maryland soldiers entitled to vote went to hospitals 



"American, July 24; Sun, July 35, 1865. The former iounul in 

an editorial of Sept. 16. 1865, notes a difference of '-Mvern 

Andrew Johnson an<l Thai!«leus Stevens in regard I- >»n- 

struction. This is, in point of tinu-. the tirst n\c\\\- tter 

that the writer could lind in the .Maryland papers ot ir.r i^. r >W 



38 The S elf -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

at Washington, Alexandria and Fortress Monroe, and to 
others in Virginia from Fredericksburg to Richmond. 
They registered altogether 295 soldiers.^^ 

The election was held on November 7, 1865, and the 
Union party was generally successful, getting a stronger 
hold on the legislature and sending J. L. Thomas, Jr., to 
Congress. In many places the election was almost a farce, 
particularly in Baltimore City, where only 10,842 citizens 
were registered, and of these 5338 did not vote. In the 
seven " lower " wards Thomas received 2040 votes, and 
William Kimmel, his Democratic opponent, 54.^" 

As might have been expected from such a grant of abso- 
lute power to election officials, many illegal and even crim- 
inal acts were perpetrated both in registering the voters and 
in receiving the ballots. A few illustrations will suffice. 

In Caroline County the officers of registration sat behind 
closed doors, admitted voters to register one at a time, and 
would not inform the individual whether they had regis- 
tered his name or not.-° The testimony in contested elec- 
tion cases before the legislature during the ensuing special 
session shows that 

" the judges of election in the 5th, 8th, loth and isth Election 
Districts of Somerset Coimty illegally received, counted and returned 
in their certificates, a large number of illegal votes. . . . The testi- 
mony . . . offers most conclusive and painful evidence of flagrantly 
vicious conduct, and a reckless disregard of the law, on the part of 
the judges of election."^ 

It is charged in another instance that one of the judges 
of election 

^* American, Sept. 5, 1865. 

"Article by Wm. M. Marine (of little value), in Nelson's Balti- 
more, 163. See also Schirf, History of Maryland, III, 671-672. 
He estimates that there was in Maryland at this time a voting popu- 
lation of about 95,000, of which 35,000 were registered and all the 
remainder disfranchised. Of those qualified by registration, he gives 
15,000 to the Democrats, which would leave 20,000 to the Union 
party, little more than one fifth of the total. Mr. Scharf's history, 
however, is biased and partizan, and the writer has found it very 
inaccurate, except when public documents are quoted. 

-° American, Sept. i, 1865. 

" House Jour, and Docs., 1866, Doc. H. 



Xational and State Politics in iS6$. 39 

"made an improper offer to rcRistcr a voter if he would vote the 
Republican ticket, and others they repeatedly refused to register 
upon the ground that they belouKcd to the opposite party. . . . Votcrt 
are frequently tlisfranchised without the assigiunent of any reason 
. . . (and) almost every form of error is displayed throuKhout 
the lists."" 

Other examples of gross wrong and injustice will appear 
in the course of the narrative. 

The end of the year 1865 saw the passing away of what 
might be called the typical conditions of Civil War times. 
Almost coincident with the new year began the self -recon- 
struction of Maryland. In the ensuing period the regi.s- 
tration act was finally repealed and the defeated Union 
party split up into two factions. The radical wing became 
the Republican party in the State, and the conservatives 
joined the triumphant Democrats, in whose hands lay the 
destinies of Marjland for many years. 



" House Jour, and Docs., 1866, Doc. I. 



CHAPTER III. 

Formation of the " Democratic-Conservative " Party 
AND Defeat of the " Radicals." 

On January lo, 1866, Thomas Swann, inaugurated the 
year before, entered upon the active discharge of the duties 
of governor. The Baltimore American of the next morn- 
ing said of Governor Swann : — 

" There is no public man in Maryland who seems to be so popular 
with the masses, — so popular with the ' bone and sinew ' of the great 
Union party that has kept Maryland true to her position as ' The 
Heart of the Union ' throughout the late rebellion." 

On January 10 the General Assembly met at the call of 
the governor in a special session, which lasted thirty days 
by constitutional provision, in order to pass needed legisla- 
tion designed to ease the financial burden on the State. A 
long message^ was received from Governor Swann, in which 
he not only stated the objects of the session, but also brought 
to the notice of the law-making body " other and perhaps 
not less important measures of domestic policy." He de- 
sired the encouragement of immigration, a new ship channel 
to the harbor of Baltimore, a reorganization of the militia, 
provision for the maintenance and support of maimed and 
disabled Union soldiers, a complete revision of the laws con- 
cerning the status of the colored population, and the grant 
to the negro of the privilege of testifying in the courts. 

Perhaps the most important part of Governor Swann's 
message, in view of his future position in state politics, is 
that dealing with the agitation for the repeal of the registry 
law, and giving his views on national affairs. It is well 
worthy of careful notice. 

Said the governor: — 

^ House Jour, and Docs., Doc. A. 
40 



Formation of " Ih'mocratic-Cotiscrvatixc " Pir ■ ■ : 

"The Act passed for the reRistration of voters . . . !u. !*^t:i 
threatened, I reRret to say, with resistance, in some parts of the 
State, chiefly aninnR those, who, in face of the decision of otir 
highest judicial trihiiiial. persist in denying its Constitutionahty, and 
ohject to the oath of allcRiance which it imposes. I trust and iMrlievc 
that such threats arc conlined to a very small class of our citizens. 
The intention of Ixith the Constitution and the registry law, was 
simply to protect the State against treason, and to show distrust 
of those who had been connected with it. . . . The law would have 
been less liable to abuse had it emlx>died the feature of appeal to 
some competent tribunal. ... If these acts (of the Union men) were 
radical and ultra, much more so was the attempt to revolutionize 
the State, and break up the Union. ... It has been alleged, that 
the dominant party, who now control the State, rq)resents a mittorUy 
of her aggregate population. If it be so. it is the more to be re- 
gretted, that so large a number of our citizens shall have identified 
themselves with the rebellion as to suffer the power, which the 
majority controlled, to pass into other hands. Small, however, as 
the minority may be, it cannot be denied that it is the fair and legiti- 
mate representative, of whatever there is of loyalty among our 
people. . . . Our citizens engaged in this Rebellion, have been re- 
ceived with kindness and toleration ; they come back, however, to be 
dealt with as the people in their wisdom may deem most expedient. 
Threats of resistance to the Constitution and Laws could hardly be 
expected to facilitate them in resuming the privileges of citizenship 
which they have deliberately abandoned. . . . The repeal of the 
Registration Act, in my judgment, will not materially benefit any 
class of voters who have been heretofore disfranchised under its 
provisions. ... As the Executive of the State, I do not feel author- 
ized to recommend a repudiation, by the Legislature, of the organic 
law of your State, by any radical modification of the terms of the 
Registration Act. . . . The regular stated meeting of the General 
Assembly under the Constitution takes place in January next. The 
Delegates who will compose that body may be expected to represent 
the wishes of the people upon this subject, as the agitation now going 
forward will show its results in the ensuing fall elections. No other 
practical mode of dealing with this question occurs to my mind than 
by its reference to the Representatives of the people, who shall com- 
pose that iMxly." 

I*"urtlicr, Ciovcnior Swanii unreservedly ciulorsccl Presi- 
dent Jt)linson and hi.s reconstruction iK)licy, and no Icjis de- 
cidedly opposed tiie granting of negro suffrage. 

Lieutenant-C"i«)vernor Cox, in calling the Senate to order, 



42 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

delivered a grandiloquent panegyric on Johnson,- which well 
illustrates the style of oratory of the man who was soon to 
become a leading opponent of Thomas Swann among the 
" Radicals." It also shows that the Union party in Mary- 
land was as yet undivided on the question of Southern 
reconstruction. Among other things he said: — 

" Scarcely had the reins of power fallen from the nerveless grasp 
of the dead President when they were gracefully but firmly seized 
by his successor, and the State, shrouded in shadow and gloom, was 
guided with a master hand in safety through the fearful crisis which 
threatened it. As the sad realization of war gave way to exultation 
at the return of peace, so the deep sorrow at the death of Abraham 
Lincoln became merged into thanksgiving to God for the gift of 
Andrew Johnson. History affords no such instance of colossal 
grandeur and sublimity as that of the man, who, elevated by his 
own unaided merit to the loftiest civil distinction, stood forth in the 
hour of his country's peril, unswayed by prejudice, unseduced by 
flattery, undismayed by menace, and dared to do his duty. . . . Not 
a year has elapsed since Andrew Johnson assumed the office ren- 
dered vacant by the death of the lamented Lincoln, and already has 
he impressed the world by the greatness and magnanimity of his 
achievements, and made himself a reputation lasting as time itself." 

Cox concluded by exhorting the Senate to show a con- 
ciliatory spirit, and to give education and the right of testi- 
fying to the negro. 

The acts of this legislature are of importance in this 
connection only so far as they relate to the political move- 
ments of the time. There was a Union majority of two 
votes in the Senate, and of twenty-eight in the House of 
Delegates, i. e., more than two to oi:ie.^ As might be ex- 
pected, it was uncompromising in support of " Radical " 
principles. On February 3, 1866, the Senate passed resolu- 
tions enfranchising all members of the General Assembly not 
hitherto registered, by the vote of 16 yeas to 2 nays.* This 
passed the House on February 6 by the vote of 56 to 18.^ 
On February 7 the same body after some debate passed 

^ Senate Jour, and Docs., 1866, 2>-7- 

* American, Jan. 9, 1866. 

* Senate Jour., 176-177, 205. 
' House Jour., 356-357- 



ioniuituni of " Pi'inocratti-i i>n.ur:ati:i- " 43 

resolutions introduced by the speaker. John M. irazur, 
of Baltimore City, which endorsed President Johnson and 
his reconstruction policy, and protested against " any at- 
tempt by Congress, or other co-ordinate branch t)f this gov- 
ernment, to force universal negro suffrage without the cfm- 
sent and sanction of the States." The vote on this was 48 
yeas to 24 nays. A section dikewise endorsing Secretary of 
State Seward was stricken out." 

The next day the Senate adopted the report of the com- 
mittee on I'ederal relations which favored the policy of 
leaving questions of reconstruction, negro suffrage, etc., to 
Congress, and further 

" Resolved. That this General .Assembly have entire confidence 
that tlie intcgrrity, patriotism and I'lrmncss of President Johnson 
and his administration, co-operating with Congress, will restore the 
Union of the States on the best and surest foundations, for the 
glory and honor of this people."' 

It is now necessary to go back a little in order to trace 
the origin of the organized movement which finally suc- 
ceeded in overthrowing the registry law and the Cnion party. 
In January, 1866, an informal gathering of Democratic 
leaders in the State resolved to call a convention of all 
persons who were opposed to the registry law. The com- 
mittee which was placed in charge of the affair issued on 
January 10 a circular letter addressed to prominent citizens 
urging cooperation in the primaries to be held for this pur- 
pose. The Democratic members of the legislature likewise 
issued a call to the same effect." 

The movement was at once taken up in all districts, and 
the local Democratic leaders, actively supi>ortctl by the 
different newspapers of their |)olitical faith, called the 
meetings which prepared for the coming convention. It was 
held by this party that the makers of the constitution of 1864 
went beyond the necessities of the occasion in putting into 



• House Jour., 37-38, 402-407. 

* Senate Docs. G; Jour., 248-250. The vote on the adoption of 

the resolutions was yeas IQ. nays 5. 

•Scharf. History of Mar>land. Ill, 672-675; Sun. J.in. 6. 11 and 
13. 1866. 



44 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

the permanent organic law of the State provisions which 
were needed to meet a temporary condition only ; that the 
oath clause was an ex post facto law and therefore in con- 
travention of the United States Constitution ; and further- 
more that the law was unjust in that a majority of the 
voting population was disfranchised. A definite attempt 
was to be made to influence the legislature to remove all 
disabilities vmder a general law by a two-thirds vote as re- 
quired by the constitution." The assertion was made that 
" the only plea that [could] be urged in support of a continu- 
ance of the present registry law, and the Constitution, . . . 
[found] its origin in political vindictiveness."^" 

Pursuant to the call, the convention met in Temperance 
Temple, Baltimore, on January 24. It organized by electing 
as president Hon. Montgomery Blair, a former member of 
Lincoln's cabinet. The Sun of January 25 says there was 
" a full attendance constituting an imposing assembly." The 
American of the same date remarked that there was pres- 
ent " quite a number of political old hunkers who used to 
flourish under the dynasties of former years, and who have 
been silent so long that few people knew of their existence." 

On the second day of meeting a set of resolutions was 
adopted, which endorsed President Johnson's " restoration 
policy," as it was generally called by the Maryland Demo- 
crats at this time, stated the determination to persist " in 
the effort to regain the freedom that is now most unjustly 
and tyrannically withheld from the majority by the minority 
of the citizens of the State," and urged that " there should 
be no cessation to the struggle to recover such freedom until 
equal liberty to all citizens of the State [should be] made 
triumphant." The registry law was condemned as " odious 
and oppressive in its provisions, unjust and tyrannical in 
the manner of its administration, the fruitful source of 
dissension among the people, calculated to keep alive the 
memory of differences which ought to be forgotten, and that 

'Frederick (Md.) Republican Citizen, Jan. 12 and 26, 1866; Balti- 
more Sun, Jan. 4, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 1866. 

" Frederick Republican Citizen, Jan. 26, 1866. 



I'ormatiou of " Ponocralic-Coiiscnalirc " I*art\. 45 

sound policy. ciiIij;IitfiK-(l statcsmansliip and |K>sitivc justice 
demand I cd I its immediate repeal." It was further resolved 
that 

" the provisions of tlic Fourth Section of the First Article of the 
Constitution which prescribe conditions to the elective franchise, 
before unknown to the people of Maryland, (arc) retrospective, 
partaking of the nature of an ex fast facto law. and repuRnant 
to the tcmis of the Declaration of Rights, as well as the Consti- 
tutioji of the United States." 

An address was also issued to the people of Maryland, 
calling for their assistance in the fight for justice. Com- 
mittees were appointed to present the address and resolu- 
tions to the legislature, to procure signatures to petitions to 
that body, and an executive committee was to take general 
charge of the movement and direct further agitation." 

Both houses of the legislature duly received the follow- 
ing communication : — 

" To the Srttale and House of Di-le);ati-s of the Genera! Assembly 
of Maryland. 
" The undersigned, a committee on the part of a convention which 
assembled in Baltimore on the twenty-fourth inst. ; in discharge of 
the duty imposed upon them by the said convention have come to 
the city of Annapolis, to ask leave to appear before your Honorable 
Bodies, to present the proceedings and prayer of said convention. 
The convention, in asking this hearing from the Legislature of the 
State, have supposed that the very large proportion of the people, 
which it is known they represent, and the paramount interest to 
the whole people of the subject for which they claim attention, 
would be a sufficient justitication for this appeal. 
" We arc. with great respect 

" Vour obedient servants. 

M. HIair. Ch'r. Thos. O. Jenkins. 

Anthony Kimmel- A. H. Davis. 
James Wallace. A. Leo Knott. 

Isaac n. Jones. F. Lewis Griffiths. 

James L'. Dennis. Thos. D. Ksgate 
" Ahnai-olis, Md., Jan. 26, iS()6." 

This retpiest was at once acceded to, and on the same 
day a joint session was held, when the committee was cour- 

" Sec daily papers for a full account of the movement. »l*o 
Scharf's History of Maryland and Nelson's Baltimore. 



46 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

teously received and allowed to present its petition, where- 
upon Montgomery Blair made a speech of some half an 
hour in length. Says the Sun :^- "The whole proceedings 
were worthy of the representatives of the people in the re- 
spective capacities in which they came together." 

As soon as the houses had resumed their separate sittings, 
J. E. Pilkington, of Baltimore City, offered a resolution in 
the House of Delegates that the "sending of large com- 
mittees to Legislative Halls was a piece of unparalleled pre- 
sumption and [un] warranted impertinence." This was de- 
feated, by a vote of 51 against 18.^^ 

The Union party had not been idle. Said the American of 
January 26: — 

" It is plain from what has occurred within the last few days 
that the issue between the loyal and disloyal people of Maryland 
is at last made up. It remains to meet it with becoming fortitude 
and determination. The Convention [of January 24] has enrolled 
every Rebel in the State in an attempt to overthrow the Registry 
Law. It remains to be seen if it has not compacted the loyal men 
for its defence." 

The Cumberland (Md.) Civilian^* stated in an editorial : — 

" We contend that the necessity for the existence and enforce- 
ment of the Registry law in the State of Maryland is today ten- 
fold greater than ever it was before." 

The Frederick (Md.) Examiner, another Union party 
sheet, expressed its sentiments as follows, on January 24 : — 

" We hope, earnestly hope, our Legislators at Annapolis will 
promptly dismiss all petitions that shall be presented to them asking 
for the modification or repeal of the Registry law. To do otherwise 
would be opening the road to the re-instatement of the very men 
who labored so zealously throughout the rebellion to force Mary- 
land out of the Union. As in the past so in the future, we can get 
along without the assistance of rebels or traitors. They deserted 
the State in the hour of trial, and we have no need of their service 
now that all danger is over. Those who proved false to their 
native State when treason and crime threatened its existence, would 
prove false in any position." 

"Jan. 27, 1866. House Jour., 188-193; Senate Jour., 84-87, 90-92. 

" House Jour., 194. 

" Quoted in American of Jan. 29, 1866. 



Formation of " Ih-mocratic-Couscn-ativc " Part\ 47 

Not to l)c iK'Iiind their f)|)poiicnts. the cxampK 
Democrats was followed, atid a union city convention oi 
all those opposed to a change in the registry law was held 
in the same place in I'altimorc on February 2. All wards 
were rqirescnted with the exception of two. Resolutions, 
addressed to the legislature, were passed protesting against 
any change in the constitution or the registry law. It was 
claimed that 

" the time has not arrived for extending the right of suffrage 
to those unfaithful citizens of the State to whom it is denied by 
the Constitution. . . . The Convention, through its committee, and 
in behalf of the patriotic and loyal people of Baltimore, indignantly 
repudiates the insolent and impudent assumption that traitors and 
the aiders and abettors of treason constitute a majority of the 
people of that City, or of our State. . . . We will defend and 
maintain the Registry Law of this State until the permanent safety 
of the Republic is forever guaranteed and secured." 

In addition, the convention expressed 

"its confidence that Andrew Johnson and the two Houses of 
Congress will be able to labor togellicr to secure the loyal people 
of the coimtry against a substitution of rebel political power to 
control the Government, for the armed efforts to overthrow it." 

A committee of twenty members, with C. Herbert Rich- 
ardson as chairman, promptly brought the resolutions before 
another joint session of the legislature on February 5.'* 
Meanwhile the General Assembly, which must adjourn by 
constitutional limitation the second week in February, was 
flooded with petitions from all parts of the State, praying for 
the repeal of the registry law. One petition from Baltimore 
City contained the names of 11.^74 citizens, ami asked that 
" all persons, who, under the old constitution were cntitle<l to 
vote, shall hereafter be allowed to exercise that right, ujxjn 
taking the oath of allegiance to the Ciovernment of the 
Uniteil States and to the State of Maryland." There were 
also numerous petitions from various individuals begging 

-House Jour., i22. 3J4. 3JO-334: Sun. Feb. 3. »W^; Nelson's 
Baltimore, lOj. 



48 The Self-Rcconstriiction of Maryland. 

to be restored to personal rights of citizenship. A very few 
were granted. ^^ 

As might have been expected, the legislature listened re- 
spectfully to the prayers of the Democrats, but refused to 
make any change in the law of the State. In the Senate, 
a bill to repeal the registry law was laid on the table by a 
vote of 13 to 10.^^ A dignified protest against the law 
was made by the Democratic Senators in these words: — 

" The popular heart is aroused as it never was before in the State. 
Petitions are pouring in signed by men of all shades of political 
opinion, for some legislative action. Meetings are held in every 
county in the State. . . . While the law-making power should never 
be influenced by mere loud clamor or noisy demonstrations, it should 
ever regard the calm, deliberate, temperate demands made for re- 
dress of wrongs which permeate the political organism of the State." 

An able argument was made on the question of submit- 
ting amendments to the constitution to effect this, and a bill 
proposed specifically to enfranchise all persons, provided 
they took the oath of allegiance contained in the registration 
act.^* In the House of Delegates, the majority of the com- 
mittee on registration in its report upon the various petitions 
presented, uncompromisingly refused any repeal of the laws, 
and recommended their rigorous enforcement. The report 
said in addition, " There is no repentance acknowledged, and 
it is not mercy that is asked, but rather the clamor of an 
unshrived multitude demanding justice." Let things remain 
as they are until the government and institutions be shaped 
" in conformity with the new order of things, and until 
[the petitioners] shall make it manifest that their purpose 
in clamoring for the ballot is not that they may make it the 
instrument of attaining the infamous end which they sought, 
but failed to reach by the bullet." The report concluded 
with this rather peculiar opinion, judged from the stand- 
point of constitutional government : — 

" See House Docs. L, M and N ; House Jour., 124, 136, 164- 
166, 178, 182-184, 202, 203, 237, 239, 259-260, 276-277, 295-296, 309- 
310, 319, 321, 351, 352, 394, 397, 431, 432, 435; also Senate Jour., 60,65, 
84, 86, 87, 90-92, 106, 136, 149, 163-164, 176, 179, 180, 183, 230, 279, 280. 

" Senate Jour., 234. 

"Senate Doc. E. 



Formation of " Dcmocratic-Couscnativc " Pm .' > . 4.^ 

" All doubt of the power of the General Assembly uiijcr the 
Constitution as it stands is removed. That po>scr is limited to the 
perfection of the (rcRistry) law; it does not extend to its repeal"* 

The minority of the omiinittcc ofTcrcd amendments to the 
constitution removing all disabilities from the Southern sym- 
pathizers, rctiuiring simply an oath of allegiance to the 
state and the national government, to the cfTect that 

" I will protect and defend the Union of the United States, and 
not allow the same to be broken up and dissolved, or the Govern- 
ment thereof to be destroyed, under any circumstances, if in my 
power to prevent it, and that I will at all times discountenance and 
oppose all combinations having for their object such dissolution 
or destruction."" 

When the legislature adjourned, the Baltimore Sun of 
February 12 said: — 

"The results of tiio called session of the LeRislatiirc. which has 
just terminated, seem not to have been of that character of im- 
mediate importance which its professed objects would have led us 
to expect. . . . We find very little eflfected through the measures 
which were proposed for immediately relieving the State of its 
indebtedness, caused by the extraordinary demands . . . growing out 
of the rebellion." 

The Frederick Republican Citizen, on Februarj' 2, while 
the General Assembly was still in <o«ion «^nv v^t t,> th,. 
following : — 

. "Our Legislature is composed, for the mo.st part, of men of 
narrow views and limited experience. Their whole thought seems 
to be directed to the surest means of retaining political power, rather 
than to the establishment of justice, the increase of fraternity, and 
the promotion of public welfare. . . . The thief repented on the 
cross, and these men may, by the grace of God. Ik? converted even 
on the last day of their session, and restore to their fellow-citixens 
those ' inestimable rights ' of which they have helped to rob them." 

After the adjournment of that l)ody, the same pa|>er on 

I'cltruary 16 said of the law-makers: — 

" Their sin of omission is so great that wc have not the heart 
to look into their sins of commission." 



House Docs., 1866, M. 
House Docs., N. 



50 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

The convention of January 24 had declared for continued 
and persistent agitation against disfranchisement, in case re- 
Hef should be denied by the legislature. In accordance 
with this determination, the Democratic leaders continued 
their propaganda, and soon a number of the more conserva- 
tive men in the Union party began to weaken in their sup- 
port of radical principles. This was perhaps more noticeable 
among the leaders than in the rank and file of the party. 

An important factor in the situation was the antagonism 
between the President and Congress, which became definite 
and open at precisely this period by the veto of the Freed- 
men's Bureau bill on February 19-^ and of the Civil Rights 
bill on March 27, 1866.^2 The Democrats in Maryland 
heartily supported Johnson and his " restoration " policy as it 
was always called by the speakers and newspapers of their 
party in the State. The radical wing of the old " Union " 
party, now in its death-throes, after some hesitation finally 
cast its lot with the supporters of Congress, and it became 
the Republican party in Maryland, which has preserved its 
organization to the present day. Of the conservative Union- 
ists, it may be said that a few of them, such as Montgomery 
Blair and Reverdy Johnson, had begun to act with the Dem- 
ocrats as early as the fall of 1864, in opposition to the new 
constitution of that year. In 1866 they were joined by 
many who were opposed to the registry law, and when the 
Fourteenth Amendment passed Congress in June of that 
year, large numbers followed their more decided brethren, 
and a definite alliance was formed of all the forces opposed 
to the Republican party as then constituted in Maryland. 
This alliance was first called the " Democratic-Conserva- 
tive " party in the summer of 1866, and became the " Dem- 
ocratic " party in the autumn of 1867, although for years the 
names were considered synonymous. It will now be our 
object to see how this new alignment was brought about, 
which was both the cause and the result of the overthrow of 

^ Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, 398-405. 

^Richardson, Mess, and Pap., VI, 405-413. See, for the period, 
Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, 51-70; Burgess, 
Reconstruction and the Constitution, 62-73. 



Pormatiou of " Dcmocratu-i ,>r..ur;iiti:r i'art\. 51 

the drastic Icj^islatioii «)f tlio Civil War iK'riod and of the 
constitution of \^(^. 

The first definite move in the pohtical game was the 
calhng of a large mass-meeting in support of Andrew 
Johnson. This was held in the Maryland Institute. Balti- 
more, on Fehruary 26, 1866, under the joint auspices of 
the Democrats and Conservatives. Mr. Knott's article, 
quoted above/' throws valuable light on the arrangements 
for this meeting, as well as upon the entire iK-riofl with 
which we are at present dealing. lie says-* that negotia- 
tions were then going on between the Democrats and Con- 
servatives looking toward a union, but nothing had so far 
been accomplished. It was the desire of some of the Con- 
servatives that the object of the meeting should be exclu- 
sively devoted to an endorsement of Johnson, and that no 
reference be made to local issues. On the other hand, the 
Democrats insisted that since a great majority of the Re- 
publicans (1. e., " Unionists ") in Maryland were opi>osed to 
the President's policy, success in the State would be depen- 
dent upon Democratic aid, and local politics would of 
necessity have to be considered. 

President Johnson having been appealed to, the views of 
the Democratic leader were sustained. The meeting was 
large and enthusiastic. Said the Sun of the next day: " A 
more spontaneous and earnest demonstration was never 
made in the city of Baltimore, nor one animated by a In-tter 
spirit." 

The American of the .same date charged that many per- 
sons were present who during the preceding five years ha<l 
held aloof from all expression of sympathy with the Union 
cause. Strange to say, in the light of his future course, 
Licutenant-dovernor Cox presided, and made a speech in 
which he said that they "met on one common platfonn — 
the platform of the Constitution." and that they had "met 
to sustain the acts of the statesman who had already proved 
himself * the right man in the right place.*" Among the 

"■ Page 28. 

"Nelson** P.-.lfin.nrr CCT-CtS 



52 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

speakers were I. Nevett Steele, of Baltimore, selected to 
represent the Democrats, John M. Frazier, of the same city, 
Union speaker of the House of Delegates, and Senators 
Edgar H. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, and James R. Doolittle, 
of Wisconsin. 

The result of this meeting was that a strong foundation 
was laid upon which the fabric of the Democratic-Conser- 
vative party was subsequently erected. For this organiza- 
tion the Democrats provided the rank and file of member- 
ship, but the adherents furnished by the Conservatives, 
while not large in number, were of great influence and 
ability. Most important of all, many of the latter had been 
prominent Union men during the war, and their participa- 
tion in the reform movement sufficiently answered any 
charges of disloyalty which could be brought against it. 
Without their aid, the Radicals would undoubtedly have 
been successful in their attempts to induce Congress to 
include Maryland in the military reconstruction of the 
Southern States.^^ 

The Radicals met this " reform " movement by calling a 
mass-meeting of " those who voted for Abraham Lincoln " 
and now " supported Congress and the registry law." This 
assembled in the Front Street Theatre, Baltimore, on the 
evening of March i, 1866,-*' and appears to have been a 
great success. The house was filled to its utmost capacity, 
and many could not gain admittance. William J. Albert 
presided, and resolutions were adopted which, be it care- 
fully noted, endorsed Governor Swann by saying : — 

" We heartily approve the declared purpose of His Excellency to 
maintain the registry law of this State; and we hereby declare 
that we are in favor of its rigid enforcement, which denies political 
power to those only who have voluntarily forfeited their right 
to it." 

Speeches were made by Senator John A. J. Creswell and 
Congressman John L. Thomas, Jr., of Maryland, and also 
by Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, Senator J. W. 

^ Mr. Knott expresses the same opinion, op. cit., 558. 
"" American, Feb. 28; Sun, March i, 1866. 



Formation of " Pcnioiralic-Conscr: iU., . /,,... 3 ^ 

Nye of Nevada, and ConRrcssnian Samuel McKcc of Ken- 
tucky." The Repul)lican party in Maryland may be said 
to date its inception from this time, while the " Union " 
party really passed out of luinR in tlie State. The Repul>- 
lican party was thus a secfuid time ushered into existence, 
and for the first time since the presidential campaign of 
i860 a permanent state organization was formed. Among 
those who were its sponsors and leaders were Joseph M. 
Gushing. Henry \V. HofTman. John A. Needles, R. Stockctt 
Matthews. C. Herbert Richardson. Henry Stockbri<lgc, 
Archibalil Stirling, Jr.. William M. Marine, George L. 
Perry and John T. Graham.-" 

The American of March 2 claimed that this was no new 
party organization, and that the people were merely rally- 
ing around the old Union party. We shall see that it soon 
had to change this opinion, for many of the leaders now 
definitely went into the Democratic-Conservative camp. 
Among them were William H. Puriu-ll. Charles E. Phelps, 
Augustus W. Bradford, John \'. L. I"'indlay, John S. Berry, 
Jqhn M. Carter, Edwin II. Wthster. and last and most 
imix)rtant of all. Governor Thomas Swann. It seems al- 
most impossible to state just when the last named definitely 
decided to leave his party. He must have hesitated for 
some weeks, for he did not openly declare himself till about 
the middle of May. 1866. under circumstances al)out to be 
narrated. 

For about two months following the conventions de- 
scribed above, political affairs in Maryland were in a tur- 
moil. Mass-meetings were held in all |iarts (^f the State 
for the purpose of endorsing .\ndrew Johnson, while the 
" Radicals " or Republicans, as we may now call them, were 
trying to stem the tide of defection, even calling in assis- 
tance from outside the State. 

A crisis was not long delayed. The Union jurty state 
executive committee met at the po^tM^f^ice building in Balti- 
more at the call of its chairman. William H. Purnell, 

*• Daily papers for M.nrch 2, 1H66. 

"Sec article liv \Vm. M. M.irinc in W-Kon's Rallimorc. i6.»-i6s. 



54 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

postmaster. John V. L. Findlay submitted resolutions 
which " endorsed the restoration policy of Andrew Johnson 
as wise, patriotic and constitutional, and in harmony with 
the loyal sentiment and purpose of the people in the sup- 
pression of the rebellion." Further, they " believed Mr. 
Swann in accord with " the resolutions and pledged their 
support of his administration. This was carried by a vote 
of eight to four, the minority casting their votes for a sub- 
stitute introduced by John L. Thomas, Jr., opposing a 
repeal of the registry law, which was lost by the same 
vote.-'' The four minority members of the committee 
were, in addition to Mr. Thomas, Samuel L. Evans, Robert 
M. Proud and W. Kimball. They published in the Balti- 
more American of May 5 an address to the " Loyal Regis- 
tered Voters of the State of Maryland," appealing from the 
action of the majority of the committee, and charging that 
the Democrats, with the sympathy of President Johnson 
and Governor Swann, were engaged in overthrowing the 
registry law. They called upon the people to organize and 
prevent it, directing them to come together in primary meet- 
ings and elect delegates from the counties and the city of 
Baltimore to a state convention, to be held in the latter 
place on June 6 following. 

The above-mentioned journal on the day before with 
great promptness had already repudiated the action of the 
majority of the committee, and had called upon the Union 
party to organize, making the statement that nine tenths of 
the members of the party would refuse to follow the com- 
mittee. On the succeeding days a series of strong editori- 
als followed, by which the minority of the committee was 
sustained and the call for the convention endorsed. It had 
at last recognized the fact that the " old Union party " no 
longer existed, and that a new organization was necessary. 
In the issue for May 14 the American printed a list of 
sixteen county newspapers which endorsed the minority 
action. 

^^Wm. M. Marine in Nelson's Baltimore, 165-166; American, May 
I and 2; Sun, May 3, 1866. 



rorniation of " Dcmocratic-Couscnativc" Party. 55 

Mcainvliilc Ciovcriior Swaiin achlrcsscd an open letter to 
the " Kditors of tlic Haltimore American," dated Anna[x> 
lis, May 10, 18^)6. The letter was published in the Amer- 
ican on May 12, and in the Sun on May 14. In it Governor 
Swann stated that he was " for keeping the control of this 
government in the hands of loyal men exclusively," was in 
favor of admitting Southern representation to Congress, 
supported Andrew Johnson and desired to maintain the 
integrity of the Unconditional Union party.*" He said 
further : — 

" I am utterly opposed to universal negro sufFragc and the extreme 
radicalism of certain men in CouRress and in our own State, who 
have becr\ striving to shape the platform of the Union party in the 
interests of negro suffrage. ... I look upon negro suffrage and 
the recognition of the power in Congress to control suffrage within 
the States as the virtual subordination of the white race to the 
ultimate control and domination of the negro in the State of Mary- 
land." ... I consider the issue upon this subject ... as well made 
in the fall elections, and the most important that has ever been 
brought to the attention of the people of the State of Maryland." 

He endorsed the course of the majority of the committee 
and found fault with inuch of the course of action of the 
Radicals during the prcccdinj,' nionths. 

The American on May 14 published a striking e<litorial 
entitled " The Position of Gov. Swaiui." saying, among 
other things : — 

" The letter which we puhli-^hod on Saturday from Govcnior 
Swann, dctining his position on National and State politics, has 
been received by his earnest personal and poliiieal friends in this 
city with astonishment and outspoken mortification. They had in- 
sisted up to the last moment, that those who doubted the position 
of the Governor were in error. . . . At least nine-tenths of the 
Union men of Maryland have taken position with the Congress of 
the United States. . . . The Governor will find, when too late, that 

"Even during the years of the Civil War there had been a 
radical wing of the Union party which called itself by this name, 
and formed a large part of the Republican party in iSfrfv-7 

"The future " 1-ourteenlh .Xmcndiiunt " was now bruig «li5cu»$ed 
in Congress. It was passed on June 1.^. iSfA and was ritflitly looked 
upon by its opponents as opening the way to negro suffrajtc. Sc€ 
the Sun. May 2\, 1806. 



56 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

he will not be followed by a corporal's guard of those who placed 
him in his present position in the course he has taken, and that 
his future affiliation must be with the disloyal, whilst his antagonists 
will be the true and loyal men of Maryland. . . . The Governor 
is understood to aspire to be chosen by the next Legislature as a 
Senator from Maryland.^ It is needless to say that with his present 
views he cannot be sent there by the Union party. . . . What has 
heretofore been in doubt is now made stubborn fact by this defini- 
tion of the views of the Governor, and he has thrown his influence 
into the scale with those who are endeavoring to sell out the 
party in Maryland. . . . We must now go into the coming contest 
with new leaders, as most of those whom we have hitherto de- 
lighted to honor have proved faithless to the trust reposed in them." 

There have been few men in Maryland who have been 
subject to such diversity of judgment and opinion as 
Thomas Swann. At that time, and even to the year of 
grace 1908, the mention of his name in conversation is often 
sufficient to call forth torrents of abuse or extreme praise. 
He was certainly entering upon an unusual course, which 
became more and more difficult to explain as time went on. 
It will perhaps never be possible to reach a complete or 
authentic estimate of the man and his work, and for this 
reason the writer feels most strongly how inadequate must 
be the attempt on his part to set forth with clearness the 
political course of the governor. 

General Ferdinand C. Latrobe, a person in an unusually 
favorable position to know,^^ has told me that the registra- 
tion act and the negro question were the causes of Swann's 
secession from the Union party. In addition to this, there 
is no doubt that he wished to be United States senator 
from Maryland, and it is said on the best of authority^* that 
some time during the summer of 1866 a definite understand- 
ing existed between him and the leaders of the Democratic 
party that he should have the office in return for his assist- 



^ The italics are mine. 

''A prominent Democrat and office-holder in Maryland for the 
last forty years. He was the son-in-law of Gov. Swann and on 
terms of peculiar intimacy with him. 

^* Hon. James R. Brewer, of Baltimore, a leading Democrat of the 
period. 



I'orumtion of " Ih'iiiocratic-Conscnnf' ■■ " '' ' ' - - 

ancc ill the repeal of the registry law. * ....i >.. .. .w. 
understanding existed appears to be borne out by the course 
of events during the next year. In all likelihood. Ciovernor 
Swann was sincerely opposed to the measures of the " Rad- 
icals." He was an able man of fine presence, though a 
" lahort'd " public speaker, and a skillful ix)litician. Of 
this last there can be no doubt. lie was also in a position 
where his aid could be all-powerful in overthrowing the 
registry law. 

The rank and f\\c of the old I'nion party seemed loath to 
believe that the governor had deserted them. As late as 
June 13 the I'^ederick Examiner supiK)rted him in an edi- 
torial and said it did not believe the reports that he was 
going to desert his party ; that he was in favor of the regis- 
try law and would carry out its provisions. Not till a 
month later^' was the Examiner willing to accept the 
change of base, and then it warned Swann that he did not 
know whither he was going, frightened by the chimera of 
negro suffrage. 

The Frederick Republican Citizen, the Examiner's bitter 
rival, was naturally jubilant over the governor's defection, 
as were the Democrats generally. The Citizen expressed 
its feelings in vigorous, if not choice, language in its issue 
for July 6: — 

" We iindcrstand a minibcr of the officials here speak very harshly 
of their Governor. . . . They thought he was a very proper man 
to he elected Governor when the State and the I'nion were in 
most imminent peril. But these zvisc and virtuous officials, now 
that Mr. Sw.inn can't go the radical programme, and consent to 
'cat dirt' all the days of his life, and say his dying prayers at 
the knees of Thad. Stevens or Charles Sumner— say they ' nnrr did 
think tnuch of him.' Some say he is a ' itHflfi" '—others say he is a 
' foot ' — and some men go so far as to say that he is a ' traitor.' " 

The Democratic newspapers and leaders in general were 
quick to seize on the advantage given them by the popular 
opposition to negro suffrage, and made the State fairly ring 

"The American on Sept. 25, 1866. made definite charges to this 
effect. 

"Issue of lulv 18. 18(16. 



58 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

from one end to the other with the fooHsh cry of " negro 
equahty,"^^ till many doubting and hesitating members of 
the old Union party fled panic-stricken into the fold of their 
opponents. It was altogether in vain that the Republicans 
denied their advocacy of negro suffrage^^ and attempted to 
stem the tide of defection. 

In pursuance of their policy of an active and aggressive 
campaign looking toward the definite organization of the 
Republican party in the State, the Radicals held a mass- 
meeting in Hagerstown on May 14, at which addresses 
were made by Senator John A. J. Creswell, Congressmen 
Francis Thomas and John L. Thomas, Jr., General James 
A. Garfield, of Ohio, and Congressman Horace Maynard, of 
Tennessee. These speeches endorsed in general the con- 
gressional plan of reconstruction, the registry law and the 
action of the minority of the state executive committee 
in calling a convention for June 6.^^ 

On May 17 the Radical " City Unconditional Union Con- 
vention " of Baltimore was held in Rechabite Hall, Fayette 
Street, all the wards being represented with the exception 
of the fourth. Resolutions were adopted by a vote of 40 
to 19- which favored the registry law, upheld the minority 

" The two quotations that follow are taken from the Frederick 
Republican Citizen. March 30, 1866, it said: "If the Union is re- 
stored, the abolition and shoddy patriots who have ruled the 
country for the last five years, and almost ruined it, will be hurled 
from power with the curses of the people upon their guilty heads. 
This deserved retribution they are seeking to prevent by a revolu- 
tion in the fundamental principles of the government, and the eleva- 
tion of the negro to an equality with the white man politically, so 
that by the aid of negro votes they may retain political su- 
premacy." On June 22, 1866, it said : " Rampant, fanatical Aboli- 
tionism gloated with its success, drunk with blood, raving with its 
insane heresies is pressing furiously onward to its legitimate conse- 
quences, the goal of full social equality for the negro with all the 
degrading horrors of amalgamation. Be not deceived; our very 
fire-sides are threatened ; aiid unless men act, and act with vigor, 
even race itself, as well as home, will be prostituted to the orgies of 
this great moloch of America." 

*^The Frederick Examiner of May 16, 1866, opposed negro suf- 
frage and said it was a campaign lie that the Union party favored 
it, adding : " The Union party to a man is opposed to admitting the 
blacks to the right of voting. There is no difference of opinion 
on the subject, all are equally opposed to it." 

^'American, May 15, 1866. 



I'ormation of " Democratic -Couscnativc " l\irt\. 59 

of the cxcculivf conimittri'. and repudiated the action of 
the majority, saying that they had " forfeitcfl all claim to 
be regarded as an exixinent of t''. ^ i. - . and sentiments of 
loyal men of Maryland." 

Later in the same evening aiM>m.i (.invention under the 
same political name was held at Temperance Temple, com- 
posed of delegates who were in accordance with the views 
of the majority of the committee. At this meeting resolu- 
tions were passed which opposed negro suffrage, endorsed 
President Johnson and repudiated the action of the rival 
convention. James Young presided over IxHh conven- 
tions.*" The following evening a Radical mass-meeting 
endorsed the action of the first convention.*' 

On June 6, in conformity with the call of the minority 
of the executive committee, the " Unconditional I'nion 
State Convention " met at Front Street Theatre, Baltimore. 
Although the definite organization of the Republican party 
really took place at this meeting, yet the old name of '* Un- 
conditional I'nion " was still retained, perhaps to sustain 
the claim of party loyalty and political consistency made by 
its members. John L. Thomas. Jr.. called the meeting to 
order, and Dr. C. II. Ohr of Allegany County was chosen 
to preside. A new state central committee was appointed, 
and the principles of the Radical party were definitely stated 
in resolutions as follows: — 

'* That the registered loyal voters of Maryland will listen to no 
propositions to repeal or moc^ify the registry law. which was enacted 
in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, and must 
remain in full force until such time as the rcRi<;tcrcd voters of the 
State shall decree that the organic law shall be changed. ... It is 
the opinion of this convention that if disloyal persons should be 
registered it will be the duty of the judges of election to administer 
the oath prescribed by the Constitution to all whose loyalty may 
be challenged, and. in the language of the Constitution, to ' carefully 
exclude from votitiR ' all that arc disqualified. . . . The question of 
negro suffrage is not an issue in the State of M3r>land, but is 
raised by the enemies of the Union party for the purpose of dividing 



"Sun and .American, May 18, 1866. 
" Sun and American, May 19. 



6o The Self-P-^-'^'r^'^r^'-y rr Maryland. 

and distractmg it, and :, 'itelv enable rebels to 

\otef 

The convention also corcially endorsed the reconstruction 
policy of Congress, ar.l £c;:umed 51 n^ diV.*^ The newly- 
appointed state central committee met on June 20 and 
organized with Robert M. Proud as president** 

Meanwhile, the Owiservatives had held on May 19 at 
Westminster a large out-of-door meeting of those in favor 
of President Johnson's pohcj- and of reform in state aitairs. 
Addresses were made by Senator T. A. Hendricks, of Indi- 
ana, Congressman L. H. Rousseau, of Kentucky, and others.** 
On the twenty-ninth the " Unconditional Union State Cen- 
tral Committee," as formerly constituted, met in Baltimore. 
It refused to recognize the call for the convention of Jime 6, 
by the minoritj' members of the executive committee, but 
instead it called another convention to meet in Baltimore on 
the fourth Wednesday of July <' twenty-fifth), and endorsed 
President Johnson and the recently published letter of Gov- 
ernor SwaniL** 

A large Conservative mass-meeting was held in ^lonu- 
ment Square, Baltimore, on June 21, in pursuance of a call 
" by the friends of President Johnson, Governor Swann and 
the opponents of negro suffrage," and "by- order of the 
Executive Committee of the State Central Committee and 
City Convention of the Unconditional Union Party of ^lary- 
land-" These men also valued old names and made use of 
them in proving party r^ularity, so they also were " Uncon- 
ditional Union." One of the mottoes that decorated the 
speakers' stand was " No affiliation with Rebels or Rad- 
icals." Governor Swann presided and made a speech, in 
which he said : " I desired to be understood as occupying a 
conservative, middle position between those who were en- 

** American and Sun, June 7, 1866: Nelson's Baltimore, 166; 
Scbarf, History of ilaryland. III, 678-679. The American of tbe 
next day said that this convention "represented very fairly the 
intelligence, character and priac^Ie of the loyal men of Mary- 
land," and tiiat its object was to organize the Unirai party. 

* American, Jnne 21, 1866. 
** Sun, May 21. 

* Srai and American of May 30. 



rormoiion of " Ih-mocratic-Couscnativc" Party. 6l 

(Icavoring to drive us into universal iuj»ro sufTraRc on the 
one side, and the supiwirt of disunicjnists on the otlicr." He 
also declared tiiat he stood for the enforcement of the regis- 
tration law, as he had stated in his message to the legisla- 
ture of the preceding January.*' Since it was upon the 
statute-hook it should he executed, hut not in a spirit of 
intolerance and o|)pression, of which there had been too 
much in the past. This was a distinct recession from his 
former (X)sition. and evidently a hint of the method he was 
to pursue in aiding the Democrats, who, if not already, were 
soon to be his allies. Addresses were also made at the same 
meeting by ex-Govcrnor A. W. Randall, of Wisconsin (later 
postmaster-general in Johnson's cabinet), Mr. IVrrine of 
New York, and General Charles K. Phelps.*^ 

On the next morning (twenty-second) an editorial in the 
Baltimore Sun made the statement that the meeting marked 
** the inauguration under the auspices of the highest execu- 
tive officer of the State, of what appears to be a more 
rational and conservative movement in the politics of the 
State, than has been clearly recognizable heretofore." 

It will be remembered by the student of national politics 
that during the summer of iSr/) President .Andrew Johnson 
and his friends made a definite attempt to organize all the 
forces throughout the country which favored his recon- 
struction policy, so as to procure a majority in Congress, 
with which to defeat Thaddeus Stevens and the so-called 
congressional plan of reconstruction. .\u organization 
known as the " National Union Club " had been formed in 
Washington with this object in view, and during the latter 
part of Jutie it issued a call f»ir a convention to meet in 
Philadelphia, August 14, 1866. This call was signed by 
men prominent in the Democratic and Conservative ranks in 
the nation. As yet President Johnson openly kept up his 
alliance with the Republicans, and when his cabinet was 
changed by the resignation of three of its fomier mcml>ers. 
he appointed no Democrats in their places. 

" Sec page 41. 

"Sun and American. June 22; Nelson's Baltimore, 166. 



62 The S elf -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

The call for the Philadelphia convention was eagerly wel- 
comed by the Democrats, particularly those of the South, 
and the movement was taken up by the more weighty ele- 
ment among the ex-Confederates, as well as by the conser- 
vative element among the Republicans, such as the anti- 
registration forces in Maryland.*^ Following the call of 
its central committee, the conservative wing of the Union 
party held its state convention on July 25 in the New 
Assembly Rooms on Hanover Street, Baltimore. A plat- 
form was drawn up which endorsed the course of Andrew 
Johnson and Thomas Swann, opposed negro enfranchise- 
ment and the registry law, and favored the call of the Phila- 
delphia convention, electing as delegates-at-large to it Mont- 
gomery Blair, Thomas Swann, J. W. Crisfield and Reverdy 
Johnson. Colonel William J. Leonard, of Worcester County, 
was unanimously nominated as candidate for state comp- 
troller for the November election.*^ 

The Democratic state convention met in Rechabite Hall, 
Baltimore, on August 8, E. G. Kilbourn, oi Anne Arundel 
County, serving as president. It endorsed Andrew Johnson 
and also the Philadelphia convention, to which it chose as 
delegates-at-large Thomas G. Pratt, of Baltimore City, H. G. 
vS. Key, of St. Mary's County, Judge Richard B. Carmichael, 
of Queen Anne's County, Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset County, 
and E. G. Kilbourn. By making no nomination against 
Leonard for comptroller, the Conservatives and Democrats 
joined their forces, and took as the objects of their alliance 
the support of Johnson and a change in both the state 
constitution and the registry law.^° 

The Philadelphia convention cemented this alliance in 

"Rhodes, History of the United States since the Compromise of 
1850, V, 614-616; Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, 
72-74; Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, go-92, 98-99. 
Sun, June 29, 1866. 

*" Sun, July 26, and American of same date, which says that Mont- 
gomery Blair was the " controlling spirit " in the convention. Mr. 
Wm. M. Marine states (Nelson's Baltimore, 166-167) that a large 
number of the delegates held places under Johnson in the Federal 
oflfices in Maryland. 

"° Sun, Aug. 9, 1866. 



Formation of " Dcmocratic-Conscnatirc " Party. 63 

Maryland more firmly and paved the way for its identifica- 
tion with the Democratic party. 

The " Southern Loyalists Convention," which was called 
by the radical elements in the Republican party of the na- 
tion, and which met at the same place on Septeml)cr 3, was 
an attemj)! to counteract the effects of the gathering just de- 
scribetl. The Loyalist speakers denounced President John- 
son with great unanimity; but the affair soon dcgcneratcil 
into an unseemly struggle between the advocates and the op- 
ponents of negro suffrage. The Maryland Radicals were 
represented by delegates to this meeting, but were not much 
helped by it in their state campaign."' 

Meanwhile a state convention had been held on August 
15. in Baltimore, at the call of Robert ^L Proud, chair- 
man of the newly constituted " Unconditional Union State 
Central Committee." The platform called Montgomery 
Blair and Thomas Swann " traitors," condemned the latter 
for abandoning the jirinciplcs of his party, favored the con- 
gressional plan of reconstruction, and proposed to uphold 
the constitution of 18^)4 and the registry law "until such 
time as the safety of the State and Nation will warrant 
modification or amendment." Colonel Robert P>rucc, of 
Allegany County, was nominated for comptroller." 

Both parties made nominations in all five congressional 
districts of the State. General Charles E. Phelps, an ex- 
Union soldier, was the conservative candidate in the third 
district. In his address accepting the nomination he made 
the following significant statement : — 

" I have never been a Republican, I am not a Democrat, and I 
do not expect to be. I believe in Republican principles, and though 
the majority must rule, the minority must be beanl."" 

It now began to appear that the Democrats had really 
won the deci<iing iK)sition when they persuaded Thomas 

"Rhodes, History of the l^niti 6j|-62a: Dunning. 

Reconstruction, Tolitical and Ecor. . Scharf. History of 

Marjiand. Ill, 679; Sun. Sept. 4, iSf<> 

" Sun and .American ft)r .Xur. If>. iSr/v 

"American and Sun, Sept. 8, iSrrf); Nelson's Baltimore, 167. 



64 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

Swann to break away from his party. The true signifi- 
cance of his policy was now made perfectly clear, namely, 
to do away as far as possible with the practical effects of the 
" iron-clad " oath of the constitution and the disfranchising 
sections of the registry law, and to give the ballot to the 
opponents of the Radical party. 

According to the provisions of the registry law, the exec- 
utive of the State was empowered to appoint the registers 
and judges of election in each district, and to these officials 
was given the final determination as to the right of each 
citizen to register, while from their decision there was no 
appeal.^* Governor Swann now began to appoint new 
election officials in all parts of the State, and to instruct 
them to interpret the oath and registry law as liberally as 
possible and to let the people register and vote.^^ Mr. 
Knott says that these men, " while adhering strictly to the 
law, so fairly and justly interpreted its provisions as to reg- 
ister a very large number of Democratic voters throughout 
the State and . . . secured them ... in their rights to the 
elective franchise." 

The Frederick Republican Citizen in its issue of August 
3, 1866, told every Democrat to register, saying that Swann's 
registers would discharge their duties " in the spirit of re- 
publican self-government" and would not insult Democrats 
at the polls, or meet them in a spirit of partizan vindic- 
tiveness. In its issue of the tenth of the same month it fur- 
ther said, " The present Governor of the State zvants you all 
to register." On the other hand, the Baltimore American 
on September 11 pointedly said that Swann, with the United 
States Senate as his object, advised the registers to give 
" liberal construction " to the law. 

This action of course threatened the ascendancy of the 
Republican party in the State. During the preceding two 

^* See page 19. 

°° Authority of Gen. F. C. Latrobe, who told the writer that at 
one time he liad in his possession the correspondence between Gov. 
Swann and the judges of election which contained these instructions, 
but burned the letters by direction of the governor. Swann was 
often called the "great emancipator." Also see Scharf, III, 679-680; 
Nelson's Baltimore (Knott's article), 558. 



I'onitation of " Dcmocratic-Conscnativi: " Part\. 65 

or three years the oKl Uni(Mi party had been able to hold 
its place only by the use of most strenuous measures. It 
could hardly be supposed that this radical section of the old 
party would be able to overcome the DenuKrats rcinforcc<l 
by the Conservatives and the newly registered citizens. 
I lowever, they did not give up. but stuck to the fight with 
grim determination. 

An election was U) be held in Ballimore City on Octolnrr 10 
for the choice of mayor and other municipal officials. (Jn 
September 18 C. L. L. Leary, city solicitor, in a refxirt 
handed to the City Council, gave his opinion that the cor- 
rected list of voters then being made under act of assem- 
bly couKl not be used at the municipal election, hence only 
those citizens registered a year before could vote." Hon. 
Alexander Randall, attorney-general of the State, in re- 
sponse to an inquiry by Governor Swann, affirmed this 
opinion.'" In direct opposition to this Senator Reverdy 
Johnson and John II. H. Latrobe published in the Sun, 
for October 2, the view that the registry law did not apply 
to the municipal election at all, on the ground that the con- 
stitution only professed to establish a government for the 
State and not for municipal corporations, these latter tx^ing 
created by the legislature and being corporations endowed 
only with such rights of voting as the law creating them 
should provide. If this were not the case the constitution 



"Sun, Sept. 19. 1866. 

** Snn and American. Oct. 9, 1866. Gnvernor Sw.inn, in his mes- 
sage to the legislature in the following January, wrote as follows 
in discussion of this point (House Does.. l8<>7. A): "The act re- 
lating to the registration of the voters of the State, passed March 
24, 1865, places the limitations within which the retiims of the 
officers of registration were required to he ma«le. heyond the period 
appointed by law for holding the municipal elections of the city 
of Baltimore. This virtually di'iframiiisr.l. according to the opituon 
of tlie Attorney General of the State, more than one half of its 
voting population. That the Legislature could not have contem- 
plated any such construction of the law. I am tni;\ i vx k. r.I . .-»nd 
the omission to name an earlier day. for the r< • --rs 

of Registration, so as to include the municipal cd 

the belief that the law was not meant to appl\ : ' '•' 

only to general Stale elections. Some of the most ciiniu 
in the State entertained this view." 
5 



66 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

would have to be applied to voting in corporations of all 
kinds, i. e., insurance, banking, etc.^^ 

The judges of election formally agreed to accept the pub- 
lished opinion of the attorney-general, and that only the 
registration lists of 1865 would be used as their guide in 
admitting or rejecting votes at the municipal election. ^^ 
This meant, at least, that the Radicals were sure of electing 
the city officials. 

The opposing candidates for the office of mayor were 
John Lee Chapman on the Radical ticket, and Daniel Harvey 
on the Conservative. Both parties entered upon the cam- 
paign with vigor, and since the municipal and state elections 
were less than a month apart, the party organizations 
worked for both of them at the same time. Thus the Con- 
servatives and Democrats held a grand parade and a mass- 
meeting on September 27, in Monument Square, presided 
over by William Price. Many leading men of both par- 
ties were present. The resolutions endorsed both An- 
drew Johnson and the Philadelphia convention.*^'* Then 
the Radicals had their parade and mass-meeting at the same 
place on the evening of October 4. Thomas Kelso presided 
and among the speakers were Senator John A. J. Creswell 
and Joseph J. Stuart. The resolutions condemned the Con- 
servatives who had " betrayed " them, expressed "detesta- 
tion of the treachery of Andrew Johnson," and concluded by 
resolving 

"That, making no threats, insisting only on the Constitution and 
the law, we look to the judges of election ' carefully to exclude 
from voting' all disloyal persons whom the conspiracy of the 
Governor and his registers have \sic\ placed on the lists, and that 

''See also editorial in American, Oct. 8, 1866; Scharf, III, 680. 
It appears that the year before this, Wm. Price, city counsellor, 
in a letter dated Sept. 11, 1865, and addressed to James Young, 
president of the first branch of the City Council, held that the fall 
election of that year must take place under the registration of the 
year before (see American, Aug. 20, 1866). The question of the 
vote in municipal elections of citizens hitherto unregistered had 
been agitated in the American of May 14, 1866. 

'"American, Oct. 9; Scharf, III, 680. 

*" American and Sun, Sept. 28, 1866. 



Formation of " Dcmocratic-Coiiscnativc " Party. 67 

the Union party of Maryland has the will mi.! th. i...vvrr to protect 
the judges and defend the ballot box."*' 

On October 9, the day preceding the election, there was 
some disorder. A mob collected in front of the Con- 
servative hca<l(|uartors at the corner of Baltimore and 
North Streets, and pulled down a United States tlafj bearing 
the inscription " Hcadtiuarters of the National Union Party 
of the State of Maryland." This inscription was torn ofT. 
and the mutilated flag raised again amid cheers," 

Mr. Knott says:"-'— 

" The Board of Police Coinniissioncrs, composed of Mayor John 
Leo Chapman ex officio, Samuel Hindes and Nicholas Wood, re- 
fused to appoint a siuRlo Democratic jikIkc or clerk of election, but 
selected their appointees for those offices from the ranks of the 
most bitter and uncompromisiuK partizans, many of whom were 
men of notoriously ill repute. The officers, in violation of the rcRis- 
tration law went behind the lists of registration, and examined the 
voters on oath as to their qualifications . . . made inquisition into 
their thoughts and opinions, and put any hj-pothetical case that their 
caprice or malevolence suggested, and required (them) to answer 
it under the penalty of exclusion from registration. The conse- 
quence of this conduct was the disfranchisement of a great majority 
of the Democratic voters of the city." 

The election passed off in a remarkably (luict maimer, con- 
sidering the excited state of political feeling. \'ery for- 
tunately, a heavy rain set in during the afternoon, which 
cleared the polls of bystanders. A printed list of voters 
as registered in 1865, containing many typographical 
errors, was used in each precinct. Chapman was elected 
with the entire Radical Municipal ticket. It was state<l that 
the Conservatives generally decided to remain away from the 
polls, hence a small total vote of 7«k)3 was cast, of which 
Chapman received 5392 and Harvey 2601. The total v«^te 
of lialtiiTiore City in i8()0 was 30.I5«>, and it is reasonable 
to suppose that the city had largely incrcasetl in populati<Mi 



' Sun and American, Oct. 5. 1866. 

'Sun and American, Oct. 10, i8</). The latter paper calls it a 

isgraceful act." 

' Nelson's Haltimore, 558. 



68 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

during the succeeding six years. It was very evident that 
the Radicals formed a minority of the inhabitants.*'^ 

The Conservatives and Democrats were at once aware 
of the significance of the results of this election, which 
seriously menaced the success of their movement. Not 
only would the government of the city continue to be en- 
tirely in the hands of their opponents, but also at the state 
election on the sixth of November following, the voting in 
this important district would be subject to the wishes of the 
same judges of election, backed up by the police commis- 
sioners. The leaders determined to act at once. 

A " Conservative City Convention " met in Rechabite Hall 
on October i6. Resolutions were passed that the police 
officials should be arraigned before the governor of the 
State, and a committee of twenty-five members was ap- 
pointed to collect evidence and lay the matter before the 
governor. 

This committee lost no time, and within two days they 
had so far succeeded in their task that they were enabled 
to visit Annapolis (on Thursday, October i8), armed with 
charges and evidence contained in a memorial to Governor 
Swann signed by 4300 citizens of Baltimore. The petition 
prayed for the removal of the police commissioners for 
misconduct in the management of the election. The gover- 
nor promised to give immediate attention and to execute 
the laws " without fear, favor or affection." Nor did he fail 
his newfound political allies, but that very same evening 
proceeded, in accordance with the thirteenth and fourteenth 
sections of Article 42 of the Code, to summon the com- 
missioners to appear for trial on Monday, October 22. It 
was of course necessary that definite action should be taken 
in time to insure to the Democrats and Conservatives the 
appointment of new judges of election in the city by the 
day of the state election. 

The commissioners answered the summons with a pro- 
test against the jurisdiction of the state executive, and re- 

" Sun and American, Oct. 11, 1864. See also Gov. Swann's mes- 
sage to the legislature, Jan., 1867 (House Docs., A). 



I-ormation of " Pcmocratic-Coiiscri'ative " Party. 69 

fused to appear in person, retainin^j Archibald Stirlinj,'. jr., 
T. S. Alexander and Henry Stockhridj^e l«i defeixl thetn. 
The committee on the other hand placed their case in the 
hands of William Schley and John II. M. I-atrol)c. The 
counsel on the opposinjj sides were thus amonjj the ablest 
members of the Baltimore bar. 

The Radicals also bestirred themselves, and a meeting of 
the " Boys in Blue" on October 19 passed resolutions con- 
demning; the interference of Swann in municipal affairs, and 
calling for a city convention of Radicals to meet on the twen- 
ty-third to protest against his action. These same " Boys 
in Blue " and the members of the several Union leagues 
were busily engage<l on the following day (the twentieth I 
in canvassing the city and enrolling the names of " such of 
the loyal citizens " as pledged themselves to ** supjx>rt the 
city authorities in resisting Mr. Swann's interference."" 

As might well be supposed, popular excitement became in- 
tense. On the twenty-second the governor i>suitl a procla- 
mation, as follows: — 

■' Whereas it has come to tfie knowledge of the Executive that 
military and other combinations are now forming in the city of 
Baltimore, for the purpose of obstructing and resisting the execu- 
tion of the laws of this State. And whereas there is reason to be- 
lieve that similar combinations are attempted to be organized in other 
States, with the intention of invading tlie soil of the State of Mary- 
land, to deprive her citizens of their just riglits under tiic laws, 
and to control the people of the State by violence and intimidation : 
Xow, therefore, I, Thomas Swann, Governor of the State of 
Maryland, do. by this my proclamation, solemnly ll'ani the I.t-adfrs 
of all such illegal and revolutionary combinations against tlw 
and dignity of the State that, in the event of riot or bl" 
growing out of these revolutionan.- proceedings, they will U ■.< ^m 
to the strictest accountability, and the power of the State will 
be exhausted to bring them to prompt and merited punishment." 

The situation was rendered much more dangerous by the 
fact that the State of Maryland at this time possessed no 
militia, nor was there any law bv which the governor 

itid organize an armed f' tnilitia act of March 

" .\merican. Oct. 22, 1866. 



70 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

lo, 1864,^'' expired by limitation on March i, 1866, and 
the legislature had failed to enact any substitute. 

On October 24 General U. S. Grant, commander in 
chief of the United States Army, addressed a letter to 
President Johnson in which he stated that upon receiving 
verbal instructions from the President to " look into the 
nature of the threatened difficulties in Baltimore," he had 
ordered General Canby, whose department included the 
State of Maryland, to proceed to Baltimore in person, in 
order to investigate the causes of the impending trouble. 
Since the return of his subordinate to Washington he 
(Grant) had conferred with him and also with Governor 
Swann, who were united in the opinion that *' no danger 
of riot need be apprehended unless the latter should find 
it necessary to remove the present police commissioners of 
Baltimore from office, and to appoint their successors." 
General Grant concluded by saying: — 

" I cannot see the possible necessity for calling in the aid of the 
military in advance of even the cause (the removal of said com- 
missioners) which is to induce riot. The conviction is forced upon 
my mind that no reason now exists for giving or promising the 
military aid of the government to support the laws of Maryland. 
... So far there seems to be merely a very bitter contest for polit- 
ical ascendency in the State. Military interference would be inter- 
preted as giving aid to one of the factions, no matter how pure 
the intention, or how guarded and just the instructions. ... If 
insurrection does come, the law provides the method of calling out 
forces to suppress it. No such condition seems to exist now." 

Meanwhile Governor Swann proceeded with the trial of 
the commissioners, and after hearing the evidence and ar- 
guments of counsel on both sides, he decided that the parties 
complained against were guilty of official misconduct as 
charged by the committee of twenty-five. He removed 
Samuel Hindes and Nicholas L. Wood from office, but John 
Lee Chapman still remained a member of the board, in 
virtue of his office as mayor of the city. 

On Friday, November 2, the governor appointed James 

*" Chapter 284 of the Maryland laws. 



Format ion of " Dcmocratic-Consen'ati'iC " Parly. y\ 

Younp and William Thomas \'aliant''^4>s jxjlicc commission- 
ers. These K^^iitlemen immetliately (|ualifie(l and took oath 
before Jiu1k<-' I^- N- Martin of the Siiin-rior Court, then went 
at once to the office of the late board in the " (;ld Assembly 
Rooms" on the northeast corner of Holliday and I-'ayettc 
Streets. Here they were informed by Dqnity Marshal John 
Manley that the l)oar<l iiad adjourned and that no business 
could be transactctl until the next morning. The new 
commissioners made three unsucccssfid efforts to sec Mayor 
Chapman, and then rented temporary quarters at No. i 
North Street till possession of the office on Holliday Street 
could be obtained. They published in the papers of the next 
day (Saturday. Xovember 3) an ".Address to the Police," 
stating that they hatl been appointed by Governor Swann, 
and expressing their determination not to interfere with the 
police force as at present organized, or to remove any 
person connected with it on account of his political opinions, 
provided that such person observed the laws then in force 
for the government of the police of the city. They also 
called upon the police and the citizens for aid in preserving 
order ami in following out the measures inaugurated by 
the authority of the governor. 

The next morning Young and \'aliant made a second call 
at the office oi the old board and were informed by the 
clerk at the door that " any communication that was to be 
made must be in writing." They at once sent in writing 
a demand that the head(|uartcrs, station-houses, fire alarm 
system, etc.. should be surrendered to them, ropiiring Ilindes 
and Wood to cease acting as commissioners, ami warning 
them that they would continue to do so at their jKril. No 
rej)ly to this was received, so the .same ilay they issued orders 
to the police which were printed in the Evening Tcle- 
grajih. re(iuiring their obedience and commanding them to 
disregard any orders from the old lK>ard. 

A large cnnvd having gathered in the street in front of 

" The American of Xovcml)cr % prints a nimor ll; 
"ffered appointment to John T. Ford, George R. Wc 

W. Ilcirn. all of whom declined. 



72 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

their office, the two commissioners ordered WilHam Thom- 
son, sheriff of the city, to summon a posse comitatus for their 
protection. The sheriff was proceeding to do this, when he 
and Young and VaHant were arrested on two bench war- 
rants issued by Judge Hugh Lennox Bond of the Criminal 
Court. After a hearing, Judge Bond ordered bail of $5000 
for each one of the three, on the charge of conspiracy. The 
court also ordered that the two commissioners give security 
in the sum of $20,000 to keep the peace toward the " existing 
commissioners " and those under their authority, and that 
they desist from all attempts to act as and exercise the 
powers of commissioners till they should have established 
their claims by law, and that the " present commissioners " 
continue in de facto exercise of their office. 

Valiant and Young refused to give bail, and were sent to 
the Baltimore City jail on two commitments each. Their 
counsel, William Schley, John H. B. Latrobe and John M. 
Frazier, applied to Judge James L. Bartol, of the State Court 
of Appeals, for writs of habeas corpus, which were made 
returnable on the following Monday, November 5, the day 
preceding the election. " The warden, influenced by the 
threats or persuasions of the Republican leaders, availed 
himself of a law recently passed, giving to the respondents 
in habeas corpus proceedings four days after the service of 
the writ within which to make answer and return." Judge 
Bartol was therefore compelled to postpone the hearing to 
November 8, two days after the election."^ 

It will at once be seen that the Radicals had won in the 
first skirmish, and most important of all, the old commis- 
sioners and their judges of election would conduct the state 

*' Knott, in Nelson's Baltimore, 560. On Nov. 2, 1866, the first 
branch of tlie City Council passed resolutions that " the attempted 
removal of the Police Commissioners ... by Thomas Swann, Gov- 
ernor of this State, is a deliberate attempt to trample upon the 
Constitution and Registry Law of the State of Maryland, and to 
place in power those who, during the entire war, were enemies of 
the United States government. Resolved, that the attempt to re- 
move the Commissioners without just cause, and for political pur- 
poses alone, calls for the condemnation of the Union men throughout 
the country" (Jour., 26, 28, 29, 33, 40). This was passed by the 
second branch the following day (Jour., 23-24). 



Formation of " Dcmocratic-Conscnativc " Party. 73 

election in the city the next day. This seemed to offer a 
hope that the Conservative forces would not be able to 
overthrow tlieir opponents in spite of the active help of 
Governor Swann. Meanwhile popular excitement had 
reached such a pitch that there was imminent danger that 
violence and bloodshed would occur at any moment. 

To Ro back a little. On the preceding Friday. November 
2, President Johnson issued the following order nddrc-^M-d 
to Edwin M. Stanton, secretary of war: — 

"There is Rrmind to apprclictul tlanRcr of an iiiMii n > ,hi:i tn 
Baltimore aRainst the constituted authorities of the State of Mary- 
land, on or about the day of tlic election soon to l>c held in that 
city, and that in such contingency the aid of the United States might 
be invoked under the acts of Congress which pertain to that sub- 
ject. While I am averse to any military demonstration that would 
have a tendency to interfere with the full exercise of the elective 
franchise in Baltimore, or be construed into any interference in 
local questions, I feci great solicitude that, should an insurrection 
take place, the government should be prepared to meet and promptly 
put it down. I accordinf,'ly desire you to call General Grant's atten- 
tion to the subject, leaving to his own discretion and judgment the 
measures of preparation and precaution that should be adopted." 

On the same day General Grant ordered General Canby, 
commanding the Department of Washington, to hold troops 
in readiness for service, and the latter officer at once came 
to Baltimore. 

The excitement on Saturday, November 3. was intense." 
The new commissioners having been place<l in jail. Gov- 
ernor Swann went to Washington during the evening to 
confer with the national authorities. Said the Sun of Mon- 
day (November 5): — 

"It is imdcrstood that a 1i>iik contirciuo i.>t; ;m.u <■ \i--.(..i..y 
(Sun<layl. at the presidcnti.1l mansion, between the rrcsidcnt. Gen- 
eral Grant, Secretary Stanton, and Attorney Gcnem! ^t >. 1„ r. with 

•The writer is informed by Mr. Isaac T. Norris that 

some years after the events narrated. Judge Bond -* i ■ . - ■ .m in 
a private conversation that excitement wa.n so great at the Hme 
of the arrest of the commissioners that he "did not know whether 
he would ever get back home fmm the Court House." The same 
judge was also prominent in the trial of the Ku Kliix Klan cases 
in the Soiitli a few years later. 



74 ^^'^ Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

reference to the extraordinary conditions of affairs in this city. 
The result of the conference, it is stated, is to the effect that the 
civil and military authorities of the general government will be 
governed by the opinion of the law officer of the government, At- 
torney General Stanbery, that the militarj- power of the government 
cannot be used to intervene in the political complications which have 
arisen in this city, except in case of actual riot, or overt acts in- 
volving a breach of the peace." 

In confirmation of this may be given the following ac- 
count of the matter as contained in a special message 
addressed to the legislature by Governor Swann on Febru- 
ary 5, 1867:— 

" No correspondence" of any description has passed between the 
President of the United States and myself in regard to the late 
municipal election in Baltimore City, or the removal of the police 
commissioners. My communications to the President were directed 
to the single point as to the power of the Executive when appealed 
to by the civil authorities of a State, in case of an emergency, to 
furnish military aid in the execution of the laws. ... I felt it to 
be my duty in the then threatening aspect of affairs in the city of 
Baltimore to guard by proper precautionary measures against any 
outbreak likely to compromise the peace of the commonwealth. 
Secretary Stanton, Generals Grant and Canby, and the Attorney 
General, were fully cognizant of what passed between the President 
and myself upon this point, and I am not aware that there was any 
difference of opinion in regard to the construction of the law in 
case a proper requisition had been made. The only telegram between 
the President and myself w^as an inquiry from me a short time 
before the election whether any change had taken place since my 
interview with him in relation to the matter. . . . The result of the 
election shows that I had no wish to resort to the military unless 
driven to it by the most urgent necessity, and to prevent anarchy 
and bloodshed, which, as Governor of the State, I was powerless 
to control." 

The governor returned to Baltimore at 8.30 p. m. on 
Sunday, November 4. General Grant accompanied him, 
being sent by President Johnson as his private representa- 
tive.^^ He made his headquarters at the Eutaw House at 
the corner of Eutaw and Baltimore Streets. The next 

"Sun, Feb. 6, 1867. 

" Mr. Knott, in Nelson's Baltimore, 561. Also stated as a fact 
by Gen. F. C. Latrobe. 



PorntiUion of " Piiiwcratii-Consi'naltvc " Party. 75 

morning (XovcmlK-r 5) lie sent the folIowinK telegram to 
Secretary Stanton : — 

" This morning collision looked almost inevitable. Wiser counftcU 
now seem to prevail, and I think there is strong hope that no riot 
will occur. Propositions looking to the harmony of parties arc 
now |)ciidiiiK. 

" U. S. GuANT, General." 

Mr. Kiioti gives some further very interesting informa- 
tion in regard to the situation at this time. He states that 
early on the same day (November 5) General Grant and 
General Canl)y had an interview with the leaders of the 
Radical party and then called upon Swann and the Demo- 
cratic-Conservative committee at the governor's P.altimorc 
residence. 

" They expressed to the Governor and to the Committee their 
hope for a peaceful solution of the difficulties, and their iKlicf that 
under the arrangements which had been made by the old Com- 
missioners, a fair and honest election wouhl be held. General 
Canby further assured the Committee that he had obtained from 
these Commissioners the promise that they would appoint a Demo- 
cratic judge and clerk at each of the polling places and urged the 
Committee to furnish such list at once. This was all that the Com- 
mitt. e had asked and with this assurance they were well content. 
... A list of judges and clerks which had already been prepared 
was inunediately taken by Mr. John T. Ford and General John W. 
Horn to the office of the Commissioners in the Old .Assembly Rooms. 
. . . But these gentlemen, after being kept waiting for some time in 
an ante-room, were fmally refused admission to the presence of the 
Board and were informed by one of its counsel through a half- 
opened door that the judges and clerks of election had l>cen ap- 
pointed an<l that no changes would be made. The door was then 
closed in their faces. In the meantime CJcneral Canby had returned 
to Washington, whither General Grant had already preceded him 
on an earlier train. There was no redress. . . . General Grant in his 
interview had made it quite plain to the Governor and to the Demo- 
cratic Conservative Committee, that in his opinion Federal inter- 
ference was unnecessary."" 

In this connection it is only fair to say that the American 
of NovcmlxT 6 stated that the old board of |> -li^^ o inmis- 

~"^elson's Baltimore, S^'-f^^. It will be rem ' Mr. 

Knott was a member of the DcuKxratic slate ex. -^ 



"JO The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

sioners told General Grant,'^ in reference to his proposed 
compromise, that they had ui\-ited the Consen-ative party to 
furnish a list containing the name of a judge of election for 
each precinct, but they had decHned, saying that they would 
wait until it was decided whether or not Swann's commis- 
sioners would have charge on election day. If Young and 
\'aliant were not in power, they would then hand their list 
to tlie old board. 

The election took place on Tuesday, November 6, and in 
spite of all their efforts, the Radicals were overwhelmingly 
defeated in both cit\- and State. Contrary- to expectation, 
the da}' passed in comparative quiet, there being '" little or 
nothing more of incident than is common on such occa- 
sions.'"* 

Out of a total of 24.346 registered voters in Baltimore 
City, a vote of i6.cx)6 was cast, Bruce (Republican ) poll- 
ing 7493 and Leonard ( Conser\-ative ) 8513.'^ Through- 
out the State, in a total vote of nearly 70,000. Leonard's 
majority- was about 13,000. The Democrats and Conserva- 
tives elected Hiram McCullough, Stevenson Archer, Charles 
E. Phelps and Frederick L. Stone in the first, second, 
third and fifth congressional districts respectively, while 
the Republicans could console themselves with but one dis- 
trict, the fourth, in which Francis Thomas was reelected. 

The rout of the Radicals extended to the legislature, 
where the Consenatives would have a two-thirds majority 

"This must have been either late on the night of Sunday, Nov. 
4, or very- early the next morning. 

" This is quoted from the Smi of Xov. 7, which would have been 
quick to note any disorder. Gen. Charles E. Phelps. Conser\-ative 
candidate for Congress at this electiori, recently showed to the 
writer one of the Democratic-Conservative tickets used at the polls 
in Baltimore. The following was printed at the top, " National 
Union Ticket, Opposed to Negro Suffrage." and tmdemeath a small 
picture of a man nailin? a United States Sasr to a msst. 

''Both Knott (Nelson's Baltimore. 562-^63^ arid Scharf (III, 
684-^) state that large numbers of Conservatives, fearing violence. 
remained away from the polls. On the other hand, John W. B^r. 
in his " life," published in Baltimore, 1873, says (page 236) : '' i he 
Johnson men threw out • the hint that every Tnan in the Custom 
House who had voted the radical ticket would be turned out the 
next day." 



Formal ion of " Dcmocratii-Couscn-athc " Parly. jj 

ill both houses tluriiiK the coming session. It was a " (|uict 
revolution," and Marylan<l was about to " reconstruct " 
herself on a basis which has lasted almost intact up to the 
present time. 

On the evening of Wednesday. Novemlwr 7. the day after 
the election, a crowd collected in Monument Sf|uare and 
then marched to the house of Govern(jr Swann on Franklin 
Street. The governor came out and in resixinse to vfKrifer- 
ous cheers said, among other things of more or less im- 
portance : — 

" I think it is due to the President of the United States to say 
that amid all these complications, I have had his countenance and 
support. . . . When General Grant came here, he came in his indi- 
vidual capacity, and not as a military man. . . . All that I can say 
in regard to the military preparations which were made for the pur- 
pose of protecting this community against riot and hloodshcd, is 
that they were freely and readily made by the President of the 
United States." 

He further stated that he hesitated to use troops, and that 
the Conservatives had won a great victory for unity and 
harmony in the state and nation.'" 

Of course the Radicals realized that they owed their 
defeat to Thomas Swann more than to any other man. and 
they continued to express their hatred and contempt for him, 
both as a man and as governor. They persistently reverted 
to the subject of the United States senatorship, and as 
appeared later, there was undoubtedly good cause for their 
doing so. 

After the election had taken place, the Frederick Fxam- 
incr of Xovcmber 14, 1866, commented as follows: — 

" \Vc were hetr-iyed by Governor Swann, who stopped short of no 
species of villainy which promised success to the unholy plot he 
conceived to wrest from loyal men the power pl.iced into their 
hands by their unswer\ing adherence to the government that traitors, 
from without and within, endeavored to destroy." 

It is now necessary to revert to the case of the police com- 
missioners which we left at the point where >'.ntng and 



American, Nov. 8, 1866. 



78 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

Valiant were committed to jail, in default of bail, and were 
compelled to wait till after the election for the return of the 
writ of habeas corpus. This return was made on Novem- 
ber 8, and on Tuesday, November 13, one week after the 
election, Judge Bartol gave his decision, establishing their 
right as commissioners from the day of their appointment. 
He also affirmed that " the Criminal Court had no power to 
pass such an order, or to commit the parties to jail for 
refusing to comply with it," and that " such commitment 
can furnish no legal cause for their detainer." 

Governor Swann's opinion on this matter, as expressed 
by him in his message to the legislature at its next session,^^ 
was that 

" the power attempted to be exercised by the Judge of the Crimi- 
nal Court is believed to be without precedent; ignoring alike the 
Great Seal of the State, and the limitations governing his judicial 
functions. I refer to the proceedings to show how far I have been 
sustained in the discharge of my official duty. Representing, as I 
did, the sovereignty of the State, as well as the power specifically 
delegated to me, in the recess of the Legislature, I held myself re- 
sponsible only to your Honorable Body for the course which I 
deemed it my duty to pursue in the removal of these delinquent 
officers." 

After Judge Bartol had rendered his decision, Young and 
Valiant entered into their own recognizance in the sum of 
$5000 each, on the charge of conspiracy, and were then dis- 
charged. They immediately went to their office on North 
Street and sent a written notice to Mayor Chapman, in 
which they informed him of their entrance upon the per- 
formance of their duties as commissioners, under judicial 
sanction, and invited him to attend, as ex officio member, a 
meeting of the board to be held that afternoon at five 
o'clock. 

Although the mayor did not appear, the other two mem- 
bers held the meeting, and organized by electing Young 
president. They notified Thomas H. Carmichael, marshal 
of police, to report forthwith for orders. He obeyed, and 

" Docs, of House of Delegates, 1867, Doc. A. 



FornuilioH of " Pi'mocratic-Cousenativc " Partv. 79 

asked for an hour's time for consideration. i: 
granted, and the marshal finally submittef'. the police force 
following his example. The following day ( N'oveml>cr 14) 
another demand was made ui>on Hindes and Wock! for all 
the property of the police Ixiard still in their possession. 
They returned an answer late in the afterncKm, promising 
to hand over everything the next day, and this was done. 
The excitement, which had continued up to this time, soon 
abated, and the Conservative victory was won." 

Before closing this chapter, it is only fair to quote from 
an editorial defense of Hindes and WVkkI, published by the 
American on October 31, during their trial. Said that 
journal : — 

"If the police commissioners admitted the Governor's risht of 
removal, and yet refused to submit to his decision, then the f»ov- 
crnor would be justifiable in employing force to compel their obedi- 
ence. Rut, so far from disobeying any law or ju(hci.'il pr'>crss of 
the State, they openly avow their willingness for a con>titutiona! 
trial, and, if found guilty, to submit to the penalty inflicted, what- 
ever that penalty may be. They wish to violate no law. The only 
question with them is, shall they servilely submit to the mandates 
of Governor Swann, or protect themselves, like citizens conscious 
of their rights, under the Constitution and laws, against every wrong 
and usurpation. They choose the latter." 



"For full particulars of the matter of the police commissioners 
see Scharf, III. 680. (>86; Nelson's Baltimore, 558-56.^; House Docs.. 
1867, Doc. A; Senate Docs., 1867, Doc. I, the latter a full and im- 
partial report by the new commissioners. The daily papers contain 
full reports of the contest, the evidence submitted by both sides, etc. 



CHAPTER IV. 
The Reform Legislature of 1867. 

The General Assembly of IMaryland met in regular ses- 
sion at Annapolis on January 2, 1867. The Democratic- 
Conservative party in the State felt that it had now- 
come into its own, for with a two-thirds majority in each 
house, and a man of the same political views as executive, 
it was free to repeal all legislation which remained as a 
legacy from Civil War conditions. It could reconstruct 
the government and laws according to its own ideas of 
what was proper and expedient. 

A large part of Governor Swann's message^ was taken up 
with the discussion of the affair of the police commissioners 
and has been already quoted.^ The message also contained 
many suggestions and recommendations, which are interest- 
ing in the light of contemporary events. 

The first of these suggestions was that the legislature 
look into the question of a new^ election for mayor and city 
council of Baltimore. Said the governor: — 

" Of one thing I am strongly convinced, that a continuance in 
authority of men profiting by their own wrong, forced upon the 
people, in opposition to the will of more than three-fourths of the 
qualified registered voters of the city, and by armed combinations 
of irresponsible ofificials holding their commissions from the Board 
of Police, would be a libel upon free government, and a gross and 
flagrant injustice to an outraged people." He also desired that 
safeguards should be thrown around the city treasury, to " check 
the wasteful expenditure which is already beginning to startle the 
tax-payer." 

An act to provide for the organization of a state militia 
was next urged, and Governor Swann then proceeded to 
discuss the question of the negro population of Maryland, 

"■ House Docs., 1867, Doc. A. 
^ See page 78. 

80 



T/jt' Reform Lccjislature of iS6j. 8 1 

stating that he regretted " to be ohligcfl to refer in this 
place to the persistent efTorts which . . . we arc so often 
called to witness, to bring discredit upon the State of Mary- 
land in her relations with the negro population." He de- 
nied any outbreaks of violence or any bad treatment of the 
negroes,^ and continued : — 

" I have felt encouraged by the general harmony which prevails 
between the races, and the total absence at this time of any serious 
disagreement, growing out of the recognized standard of wages or 
any otlicr exciting cause. . . . The recent discussion in the Mouse 
of Representatives, in reference to the political disabilities imposed 
by our laws upon the colored race,* can hardly be recognized as 
dealing fairly with the subject to which reference was made, with 
so much unnecessary bitterness. There is no disposition in this 
State, so far as I am informed, to interfere with the civil rights 
of the negro, and all laws in conflict with them I sincerely hope 
will receive your prompt attention. . . . The effort on the part of 
a class of extreme men, to turn to party account occurrences so 
insignificant in themselves, and susceptible of such conclusive ex- 
planation, is only to be accounted for, as connected with the attempt 
already foreshadowed, to include Maryland in the list of revolted 
States, awaiting the fiat of territorial subjugation. ... In commit- 
ting the unpardonable sin of denying to the negro the privilege 
of suffrage [Maryland] stands by the side of others of her sister 
States of the North, not less criminal than herself, and certainly as 
uncompromising and obstinate in their settled convictions upon tbr 
subject." 

The governor oppo.scd the Fourteenth AmenthiK. 

further, agreed with President Johnson's idea tliat negro 
suflfrage should be left to the States. He also approved the 
President's plan of reconstruction. Finally, he advised the 
calling of a convention to fomuilate a new state constitu- 
tion at an early day, and concluded as follows: — 

"If I have saved your State from threatened invasion by men 
who were ready to plunge it again into the horrors of civil war, 
and the not less disreputable machinations of revolutionar}* agita- 
tors in your midst — If I have turned back the airrent of a bitter and 



*The Sun of Jan. ii. 1867, also denied the stories of ill-treatment 
of negroes in Marj-land. 

* For a di.scussion of the funeral question of the Federal rela- 
tions of Maryland at this period, sec pages lOJ-Ilo, IJ9-»JI- 
6 



82 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

unforgiving party rancor which threatened the very existence of 
your political and social fabric — if I have restored to the people 
of my State their just rights under their Constitution and laws, 
I may congratulate myself that my administration thus far has not 
been without its fruits, in maintaining the supremacy of the laws — 
the freedom of republican institutions, and the credit of Con- 
stitutional Government." 

The Senate was called to order by the lieutenant-governor, 
Dr. Cox, who made a few remarks, in the course of which 
he spoke of Maryland as the first State to shake off slavery, 
" the incubus so stifling to her prosperity, . . . although she 
is unprepared now, as she will ever be, for the adoption or 
sanction of any measure tending to so absurd and revolting 
a result as the social equality of the races." He favored 
giving to the negroes the right of testifying in the courts.^ 

The House of Delegates organized the next day (January 
3), and elected Oliver Miller, of Anne Arundel County, as 
speaker by a vote of 57 to 18 for all others. Miller was an 
able man, and had been prominent in the councils of the 
Democrats during the preceding years. In accepting the 
office he spoke against the reconstruction policy of Congress, 
and in favor of that of Andrew Johnson. The Democrats 
asserted that this legislature was the first one in several 
years which in reality represented the will of the people of 
Maryland,® and the popular approval of their work as 
shown by the succeeding elections in April and November, 
1867, tends to prove this claim. 

The following resolutions, offered by Marriott Boswell, 
of Baltimore City, in the House of Delegates were passed 
by the legislature during the month of January. They 
showed the opinions on national and state politics of the 
Democratic-Conservative members of the legislature to be 
as follows: — 

° Senate Jour., 1867, 4. 

'Sun, Jan. 2, 1867. Scharf, III, 689, says: "Very many of the 
members of both Houses were gentlemen of the highest character 
and of great political experience, and the majority of the Legisla- 
ture unquestionably represented the feelings, convictions and views 
of at least seven or eight-tenths of the people of the State." The 
present writer is strongly inclined to doubt this last statement. 



The Reform Legislature of i86j. 83 

" Resolved !)>• the General As.seml»ly of Maryland, That in thnr 
jiulRmcnt the policy heretofore announced, and up to this time 
consistently maintained hy the President of the United State*, upon 
the question of the right of the excluded Southern states to their 
Constitutional Representation in Congress is just, wise and states- 
manlike, and is the only practicable mode by which the Union, as 
created and recogiiized by the Constitution, can be restored. Re- 
solvetl. That the General Assembly recognizes in the action of his 
Excellency, Thomas Swaim, in support of this policy of the Tresi- 
dcnt of the United States, and in the just and liberal execution by 
him of the existing Registry Law of this State, a conctirrencc with 
the sentiments of a great majority of the people of this State, and 
a proper recognition of their inalienable right to participate in its 
Government by the exercise of the elective franchise.'*' ^ 

Xo time was I(^st in getting to work, and a series of meas- 
ures followed which aimed to complete the |)olitical trans- 
formation of the State. The most important act restored 
to full citizenship and the right to vote and hold office all 
persons deprived thereof by the fourth section of Article I 
of the constitution of 18^)4. This same section had pro- 
vided that any dis(|ualified person might be " restored to 
full rights of citizenship by an act of the General Assembly 
passed by a vote of two thirds of the members elected to 
each House." and in accordance with this a general bill 
applying to all the disfranchised citizens was passed by the 
House of Delegates, after futile opposition on the part of 
the minority, by a vote of 59 to 19. The Senate passed the 
satue bill by the vote of 16 to 7. The minority here at- 
tempted to amend the act by excepting from its provisions 
all those who had Ikcu members of the Confederate army or 
navy, but were defeated by the same vote. This bill secure«l 
to the jiolitical outcasts the vote which had hitherto been 
tiicirs only by the grace of Thomas Swaim and his election 
officials." 

Further legislation was as follows: (i) a bill which 
repealed Article XXXV, Section 9, of the code of publi<- r- "- 

' House Jour, 13, 28-39. 79-801 Senate Jour., 22. 23, 35, 4- 

votc on these resolutions was. House, yeas 47, nays 17; >c:ui;c. 
yeas i.^, nays 4. 
•House Jour., 1867. ^ 51-55. P7-88; Senate Jour, 101-104. 



84 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

eral laws, thereby relieving judges of election from the 
necessity of taking the " iron-clad " oath of the constitution 
of 1864, and substituting therefore merely an oath of alle- 
giance;^ (2) a bill which repealed the act passed by the 
legislature of 1864 requiring jurors to take the test oath/° 
and finally (3) a new registration law which required that 
the election officials and voters should take either the oath 
prescribed in the constitution of 1864 or a simple oath of 
allegiance, in conformity with the recent act restoring to full 
citizenship and right to hold office those deprived thereof 
by the constitutional provisions. It further required that 
the judges of election must register all persons qualified 
to vote, and duly receive and count all votes of such persons 
registered, and in addition these officials were given the 
powers of justices of the peace and of sheriffs, that they 
might issue summons to witnesses. Finally, it required that 
the judges of election take the vote of the Maryland soldiers 
and sailors in the national service. ^^ 

Another important act, but of a somewhat different char- 
acter, provided for the organization and discipline of a state 
militia force. This measure passed both houses of the 
General Assembly on the same day (March 22).^- The 
militia law of 1864 had expired by limitation on March i, 
1866, and the legislature at its special session held that 
year failed to deal with the question. It is said^^ that there 
was no great opposition to such a force, but that the people 
merely thought it was unnecessary. In fact, Maryland was 
for some years under the military government of the United 
States, for the provost-marshal's office did not cease to exist 
in Baltimore till January 31, 1866. The events of the pre- 
ceding November had now evidently awakened the people 
to a realization of the danger of such a defenseless situation, 

'House Jour., 285, 314, 800, 926; Senate Jour., 512, 535, 561. 

^"Senate Jour., 153, 201, 235, 813; House Jour., 436, 1137-1138. 

"House Jour., 503, 625, 627, 919; Senate Jour., 426, 429, 559. 

"Senate Jour., 794; House Jour., 1117. 

"Authority of Gen. F. C. Latrobe. There was, perhaps, during 
the early part of 1866, a temporary opposition to a militia force as 
dangerous in time of peace. 



The Reform Legislature of iSOj. : 

and the General Asscnihly tf)ll<nvc(I the recommendation of 
Governor Swann. 

The committee of the House of Delegates on federal 
relations handed in a majority report on I^'ehruary 2\. 
rcsolvinp that the State of Maryland had a good, valid and 
just claim upon the government of the I'nited Stati-s i.»r 
" reasonable and adefjuate compensation " for the loss of 
property coincident with the emancipation of the slaves in 
1864. This claim was of course based upon President Lin- 
coln's message of March 6. 1862. and the congressional 
resolution of April 10 following.'* The report further sug- 
gested that the legislature should provide means for jK-r- 
pctuating the proof of slave ownership.'* On the other 
hand, the minority handed in a nport on Marcii i protest- 
ing against compensation, and added a resolution that if 
jK'rchance any such national appropriation should Ix: made, 
the money should be used for the benefit of the widows and 
orphans of Union soldiers of Maryland, and further, that a 
record should be kept of the destruction, by Confederates, 
of the private property of loyal citizens of the State.'* 
Needless to say, this latter report was overwhelmingly fle- 
feated and that of the majority adopted.'" It is interesting 
to note that although the Senate also had passed a bill to 
preserve lists of emancipated slaves, it failed to endorse the 
action of the House, so the matter was allowed to drop on 
the last day of the session.'" 

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the 
I'nited States was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866. It 
• as received by the General Assembly of Maryland at this 
rssion, and referred to a joint cotnmittee of the two 
houses, which rendered lK)th majority and minority rcpt^rts. 
That of the majority opposed the adoption of the amend- 
ment. It began with a long discussion of the subject of 
reconstruction, claimed that the amendment would interfere 

" Sec my Maryland Constitution of l8(M. ■ < 

"House Docs., 1867, Doc. EE. 

"House Docs.. iBT,;. Doc. H. 

•Miouse Jour, 5».^-5i5. fi57-^>5^ \\2\-\\. 

"Senate Jour, 50J. 5.13. 606. 780, 806; ii-uvc j.ui . >,, <. looi. 



86 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

with states' rights, and also that it did not pass Congress 
by the required two-thirds majority, because the Southern 
States were not represented in that body. The report fur- 
ther insisted that Section 3 of the amendment, which pro- 
vided for the punishment of ex-Confederates, was an ex 
post facto law, and that neither Congress nor the Maryland 
legislature zvas permitted to pass it, since it was prohibited 
by both the national and the state constitutions.^^ In addi- 
tion, the report also made a long argument for the Southern 
view of states' rights and secession, and stated that there 
was " reasonable ground for believing that the seceding 
States were honest and sincere in their convictions, although 
they led them to such disastrous results ; " hence, in punish- 
ing the South, the question of intention should be considered 
in mitigation of the crime. Finally, protesting against Sec- 
tion 4 of the proposal, which prohibited any compensa- 
tion for slaves by State or by nation, it was resolved that 
the General Assembly refuse to ratify the Fourteenth 
Amendment, and that a copy of the resolutions be sent to 
the secretary of state of the United States, and to the 
executive of each State of the union. The report was 
signed by Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset, A. Leo Knott, of 
Baltimore City, Richard B. Carmichael, of Queen Anne's, 
Oden Bowie, of Prince George's, George Vickers, of Kent, 
Levin L. Waters, of Somerset, and Alfred Spates, of Alle- 
gany. Any person familiar with the Maryland of that day 
will at once appreciate the weight and influence carried by 
these names.-" 

The minority report, which recommended that the amend- 
ment be ratified, was rejected, and on March 23 the Senate 
adopted the majority report by the vote of yeas 13, nays 
4. The House of Delegates did the same by the vote of 
yeas 47, nays 10.^^ The State thus refused to grant citi- 
zenship to the negro, but as a concession to public opinion 
an act was passed during January by a large majority in 

" The italics are mine. Of course this reasoning was false. 
;" House Docs., 1867, Doc. MM; Senate Docs., Doc. X. 
"^Senate Jour., 808; House Jour., 1140-1141. 



7Vu' Reform I.c(;i stature of i86j. 87 

botli li()U«M>, wliich proliihitcd the sale of nepro convicts." 
I'cfore passing to a consideration of the suhject of 
greatest importance to the Conservatives, that of the call of 
a constitutional convention and the atten<lant coinpUcations 
with Baltimore City politics, there must !>c recorded the 
attempt of the Democratic-Conservative mcml)crs to carry 
out their part of the agreement made with the friends of 
Governor Swann the year l)efore. to elect him to the United 
States Senate. The General Assemhly in the course of its 
legislation had very extensively carried out the recommen- 
dations of the governor's message. This full jxilitical con- 
cord, which seems to have extended to national issues also, 
was another reason for the selection of Swann by the Con- 
servative forces. 

In consequence of the agreement, the two houses met in 
joint session on January 25, 1867, and on the seventh ballot 
chose Thomas Swann to be senator in succession to John 
A. J. Creswell. The law which rccpiired that one of the 
senators should be a resident of the Eastern Shore of Mary- 
land was repealed just before this election, and reenacted 
aftcrwards.^^ 

On Thursday, February 7. the senator-elect attende<l a 
bancpiet given in his honor at the Continental Hotel. Phila- 
delphia, by conservative men of all jiarties. He delivered 
a long speech on this occasion,-* in the course of which he 
said that the reason for his " split " with the Radicals was 
the question of " forced negro suffrage. — upon the right of 
the general government to interfere with the States in the 
administration of their domestic affairs." Governor Swann 
denied any underhand dealing in winning the senatJirship, 
saying: — 

" They charge me with havinR tlirown the whole cncrjo' of my 
character into a contest in which I li.id no more part than the 

"Scharf, III, 694: American, Jan. .^8. iHbr See also Gen. Charles 
E. Phelps' statement in Cong. Globe. 2nA Scss.. 39th Cong.. 1866-7, 
Pt. I. p. 6n). 

"House Jour. loi. ii8. 133. 150. 150, 170. 178: Nelson's Balli- 
more. 571. The other senator at this time was Revcrdy Johnson. 
also of Baltininrr. 

"Reported in the Sun for Feb. \2, 1867. 



8S The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

gentlemen who stand before me tonight. That man is not to be 
found in the State of Maryland who will come to me and say that 
I ever approached him in the interest of the high position to which 
the State of Maryland has elected me. ... I ask no favors. I 
go to the Senate with a clean record, with a record such as no man 
can justly assail, and of which I have reason to feel proud." 

Difficult indeed would it be to reconcile the many con- 
flicting statements respecting this senatorial election. Swann 
evidently made some sort of an agreement with the Dem- 
ocrats concerning the office, and was now prepared to take 
refuge in equivocation. Perhaps he saw some difference 
between " approaching " a man, and allowing one's friends 
to have a definite understanding upon a certain subject, but 
the Radicals failed to discern it. 

Not long after this election new complications began 
to arise. As soon as the governor resigned from office 
in order to enter upon his duties as senator, Lieutenant- 
Governor Christopher C. Cox would become his successor. 
Dr. Cox had at one time during the preceding year wavered 
in his political allegiance, even going so far as to preside 
over the large Democratic-Conservative mass-meeting at the 
Maryland Institute on February 26, 1866;-^ but he had re- 
turned to the Radical party, and was now on good terms 
with its leaders. The Republicans were quick to seize their 
advantage. With the executive office again in their hands 
they might perhaps after all save their cause in Maryland. 
The Congress of the United States in both branches was 
now completely in the hands of the Republicans, so a clever 
scheme was planned by the Radicals in Maryland, of which 
Dr. Cox seems to have been only partly informed. A 
definite understanding with the Washington leaders was 
reached, according to which Swann was to be prevented by 
the Republican senators from taking his seat in the upper 
bouse, and in case this matter should not be settled by the 
Sinate before the legislature adjourned, Dr. Cox would 
have the opportunity to appoint a Republican to fill the va- 
cancy ad interim. It is considered probable that Cox knew 

^See page 51. 



The Reform Letjislalm 



nothing of this jiart of the arrangement, hence ill^ M!h^^•- 
fiucnt denial of comphcity was honest. The Radicals in 
Maryland seem to have feared that the new governor 
mif,'ht pursue an erratic course while in office, so they decided 
that John T. Graham of Haltimorc City shouldlK* apixiinted 
secretary of state, in order to " keep an eye " on Cox, and 
the latter was induced to make a promise to apjKiint him. 
Dr. Cox is another man who was praised by his friends 
and vilified by his enemies. The writer has talke«l with a 
luimbcr of those who knew him personally, and the 
consensus of opinion is that he was clever and brilliant, 
but lacked balance. lie was a graduate of Yale College, a 
successful practicing physician, and above all an ambitious 
man. Honest and well-meaning, of fine presence and courtly 
manner, he had little or no executive ability, while his ex- 
cessive vanity and limited discernment caused him to be 
easily " used." There was a certain following of people 
in the State which was attracted to him but did not appre- 
ciate his limitations. His abilities were "showy" rather 
than solid. He desired the notnination for governor in 
1864, but when it was given to Swann, accepted that of 
lieutenant-governor. 

Meanwhile, the Conservatives foun<l out what was going 
on, for Major Edward Pclhcrbridge, of r.allimore City, 
turned traitor to the Republicans and informed the Demo- 
crats that Swann would not be seated in the Senate." The 
latter had already intimated his acceptance of the senator- 
hip, and had fixed upon Tuesday, February 26, 1867, as 
the date of his resignation and retirement from the office of 
governor. Both houses of the General .\ssembly therou|mn 
made arrangements for the inauguration of Dr. Cox on 
that day. 

Mr. A. Leo Knott gives valuable information as to what 
took place among the Democrats." It api>ears that late on 
the evening of February 22 Washington Bonifant, United 

"Authority of Mr. John T. Graluim of Ballimorc. who. in con- 
vcrs.ition with the writer. Iwrc witness to the tnith of this slaleincnt. 

" .W-lM.irs i'...Itim.>rc. .i;;! 



90 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

States marshal for Maryland, brought news from Mont- 
gomery Blair in Washington, of rumors which were cur- 
rent in that city in regard to what was scheduled to take 
place when Dr. Cox became governor. 

1. Swann was to be refused admission to the Senate on 
the ground that his election was the result of a bargain 
with the disloyal element in Maryland, and also that it had 
been a violation of the spirit if not of the letter of the 
Eastern Shore law when Swann was elected senator. 

2. The vacancy caused by his debarment was to be 
filled by the appointment, by Dr. Cox, of John A. J. Cres- 
well. 

3. Dr. Cox was further to use his influence against the 
enactment of a constitutional convention bill, or against 
carrying it into effect in case the legislature should pass 
such an act, and " to that end aid would be given him 
from Washington even to the extent of sending troops of 
the United States into the State." 

Blair further stated that Dr. Cox had been in Washing- 
ton for a week, and to his positive knowledge had two in- 
terviews, each of some length, with Secretary Stanton at the 
war office.^* Mr. Knott adds that Governor Swann told 
him that he (Swann) had been nettled by lack of support 
on the part of some of the Democrats,^^ so Judge Richard B. 
Carmichael and Philip Francis Thomas called upon the gov- 
ernor at the executive mansion in Annapolis on Monday, 
February 25, in order to allay his irritation. 

The present writer has it on the best authority that Swann 
sent John jM. Carter, his secretary of state, to Washington 
to inquire into conditions there, and must have been satisfied 
of at least the partial truth of the reports, for INIr. Knott 
says further: — 

^ Mr. John T. Graham states that Montgomery Blair was largely 
correct, that there was an understanding (not a bargain) between 
the national and state Republican leaders according to which the 
above arrangement was to be carried out, but he doubts the truth 
of the report that the support of United States troops was promised, 
saying that, according to his knowledge of the affair, no mention 
was made of any military aid from Washington. 

^ It will be remembered that it had taken seven ballots for the 
General Assembly to elect him. 



The Reform Lajishturc of t86j. 91 

'After fully wcisliiiiff tin- inatlrr the Governor, late on the 
evening of Monday, the 2f,\\\ of February, invited several of hi^ 
friends, members of the LeKisIatiire. to the executive chamber and 
informed them that he had conchidcti to tlcfcr hin retirement from 
the office of Governor for the present, and that the inaiifrtration 
of his successor would not take place on the day followinK*' 

Meanwhile Dr. Cox seems to have felt certain that he 
was to become governor. Me visited the executive man- 
sion in Annapolis and told General F. C. I^-itrolnr and 
Adjutant-General Hcrry where he intended to place the fur- 
niture of the house, and how he would arrange it.*" It 
is said that on the morning of Tuesday. Tebruary 2G, his 
family and also many of his friends from the Eastern Shore 
were in Annapolis to attend the inauguration. He may 
have gotten a hint that trouble was brewing, but hopcti 
against hope that all would turn out well at last. 

However, when the Senate was called to order on the day 
appointed (twenty-sixth), he laid before it the following 
letter from Governor Swanu. which he had just received: — 

■' KXECITIVE DKI'\RT.ME>fT. 

" Febmary 26. 1867. 
" To Lieut. Governor C. C. Co.x, 

"Dear Sir: Having informed you of my purpose to resign the 
position which I now hold as Governor of Maryland, on the J6th 
(this day), I now state, in order that it may be communicated to 
the Senate, to whom the announcement has been made, that I do 
not feel at liberty to take this important step, without further time 
for deliberation. I shall communicate with the General Assembly 
at as early a day as practicable, upon this subject. 
" With great respect, 

'■ Your obd't servant, 

" Thos. Swa.nn." 

Dr. Cox then made the following tlignified statement : — 

"Senators: in connection with this prtKecding. the chair desire* 
to present a simple statement due to himself, the Senate and the 
public. On Tuesday last, just one week ago, he was sent for by 
his Excellency, who read to him his letter resigning the Governor- 
ship of Maryland, which he to<^k occasion to notify him would be 
sent in on Tuesday, 26th inst., to take effect on and after that 



Authority of General Latrobc himself. 



92 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

date. This was accordingly, and with his permission, announced 
to the Senate, on the same day on which the communication was 
made, and a committee appointed to institute the proper arrange- 
ment for the public ceremonies of installation. These progressed 
and were perfected in good faith. The Chair was in conference 
with his Excellency, yesterday, but had no reason to anticipate 
any change in the published proceedings, but on the contrary, was 
reassured of the certainty of his Excellency's resignation, at this 
hour today, as previously determined upon; nor was any intima- 
tion or knowledge of a different purpose furnished to the Chair, 
until an hour and a half ago, when the letter just read was received 
by the hands of Mr. Leary, the Private Secretary. I have deemed, 
Senators, this simple announcement of facts emineiitly proper on 
this occasion, in order that no misapprehension may arise as to 
the relation of the Chair, or the body over which he has the honor 
to preside, to the existing disappointment. The onus of explaining 
to the Senate and the public the cause of the failure of the pro- 
gramme, at so late an hour, will rest where it properly belongs."^' 

On March i Governor Swann formally declined the 
election to the Senate in a communication addressed to 
the General Assembly. He stated that he had intended to 
accept, since the office had been conferred, " as is well 
known to the members of the Legislature and my friends 
throughout the State, without any agency or solicitation on 
my part." He also said that lately he had been " visited 
by such appeals from the representative men of the State, 
urged with an earnestness and unanimity which could hardly 
be mistaken, who begged him to retain the executive office 
that he bowed to their judgment that his paramount duty 
was to the State."^^ 

In reply, the legislature passed joint resolutions of ap- 
preciation of his action as " an evidence of the same devo- 
tion " to the welfare of the State " which has in the past 
earned for him its highest honours, and will in the future 
more strongly commend him to the confidence of the peo- 
ple." Also that they were " fully impressed with the opin- 
ion " that he had " but complied with the general wish of 

'' Senate Jour., 264, 306-307; also see American, Feb. 27, 28, March 
I and 2, for various rumors about the withdrawal of his resigna- 
tion by Gov. Swann. 

^ House Jour., 649-650. 



Tlw Reform Lajislaturc of iS6j. 93 

the people of Maryland.*'" rinally, on March 12, 1867, 
Hon. Philip I'Vancis Thomas was elected senator on the 
fir>t hallot.'* 

Said the American of Marcli 2: — 

" The Radicals of Maryland have this to rejoice over. They have 
driven Mr. Swann out of the Senate, and they have driven him into 
the Democratic party. Two things to be greatly thankful for." 

On March 4, 1867. Dr. Cox stated in the Senate that 
various reports were being diligently circulate<l, which he 
had at first thought it unworthy to notice, but since they had 
now found their way into the public press, he judged it 
necessary to deny theni. They were, first, that he had en- 
tered into a corrujit arrangement with certain parties (in 
the event of his accession to the govcrnor>hip) to hand 
over the affairs of the State to the direction and control 
of the so-called Radical party, and secondly, that he had 
bargained corruptly (in the event of becoming governor) 
to substitute Creswell, now of the United States Senate, in 
the place of Swaiui, should the latter be rcjecte<l by that 
body. Dr. Cox made the request of the Senate that a 
committee of five be appointed at once to investigate these 
charges. This request was com|>lied with, and on March 
21 the committee reported that they hail investigated the 
matter and had 

" failed to elicit any tittle of evidence to sustain such a charge. 
... In an intcr\-icw which your committee held with the chief 
Executive officer of the State, that officer distinctly disclaimed 
having based his recent action upon any supposed credibility of 
these injurious charges, but asserted, on the contrary, that his course 
had been dictated by high motives of State policy. Your committee 
have endeavored in vain to find any one who could venture to 
assume the responsibility of any of the slanderous insinuations above 
referred to. . . . The unexpected dccliuatlon by Governor Swann 
of a high and coveted honor, to which his friends had con^iHrrH 



"House Jour, 650-651, 670; Senate Jour, 378. 

•* House Jour.. 84J ; Senate Jour., 559. Mr. Thomas 
permitted to t.ikc his seat in the Senate, on the ground of duioyAlty, 
and Mr. George Vickers was elected in his place. 



94 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

him entitled, and for which they had contended with energy and 
determination, occasioned a bewildering surprise throughout the 
State," 

hence various conjectures and charges naturally arose. This 
report was unanimously adopted by the Senate.^^ 

General F. C. Latrobe of Baltimore states that although 
Governor Swann was very ambitious to become senator, he 
gave up the office as an act of patriotism and self-sacrifice, 
for the good of his party and the State of Maryland. He 
also desired to keep Dr. Cox from becoming governor, and 
feared that perhaps he would not be permitted to take his 
seat in the Senate.^*' The Conservatives had carried out 
their part of the agreement, no matter with whom it had 
been made, and it was through no fault of theirs that plans 
had miscarried. 

It was the almost unanimous opinion of the Democratic 
and Conservative forces that the permanency of the reforms 
made could not be guaranteed or the entire reconstruction 
of the State completed unless an entirely new constitution 
were drafted. Governor Swann recommended such a step 
in his message, and the legislature promptly entered upon 
its accomplishment. 

It is a curious fact that each one of the constitutions 
formed for the government of the State of Maryland was 
made in an illegal manner.-'''^ The constitution of 1867 
was no exception. The instrument of 1864 provided in 
Article XI, Section 2, as follows : — 

" Whenever two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of 
the General Assembly shall think it necessary to call a Convention 

^Senate Jour., 403, 411, 412, 730. Mr. Knott makes the fol- 
lowing extremely partizan statement in regard to these charges 
against Dr. Cox (Nelson's Baltimore, 573) : "There has never been 
since any reason or ground furnished to change or modify the 
opinion and belief at that time so generally and authoritatively 
expressed. On the contrary, subsequent events confirmed that 
opinion and belief." Mr. Knott makes no further effort to sub- 
stantiate his statements. 

^"This statement was made by General Latrobe in a conversa- 
tion with the writer. 

^' See, for example, J. W. Harry, Maryland Constitution of 1851, 
and my Maryland Constitution of 1864. 



The Reform Legislature of iS6j. 

to revise, amend or cliaiigc tliis Constitution, they shall recommend 
to the electors to vote at the next election for meml>cr» of the 
General Assembly for or against a Convention; and if a majority 
of all the electors voting at said election shall have voted for a 
Convention, the General Assembly shall, at their next session, pro- 
vi<lc by law for calling the same. The Convention shall consist of 
as many members as both Houses of the General Assembly, who 
shall be chosen in the same manner, and shall meet within three 
months after their election for the purpose aforesaid." 

When we come to describe the convention bill as finally 
passed by the legislature, we shall find that it definitely 
violated each one of the three requirements of the section 
laid down to control the proceedings in the matter, for a 
>|)ecial election was held for the approval of the people, 
members of the convention were voted upon at the same 
time, and the representation was not the same as that in 
both houses of the General Assembly. Of course the Rad- 
icals were quick to attack the legality of the bill, and in 
answer to their opponents the Democratic-Conservative 
forces passed two series of resolutions through the House 
of Delegates, which contain some rather interesting vagaries 
in the realm of constitutional law. 

The first resolutions were introduced on January 22, 
1867, by Alexander Evans, of Cecil County, and passed 
l'>bruary 7 by the vote of yeas 48. nays 17." 

" Tiiat to prevent anarchy, confusion and irregular unauthorized 
government, it is expedient that proposals to create, or to alter 
and amend a Constitution, should emanate from the Legislature. 

"2d. That the power of the Legislature at any time, to refer 
to the people questions concerning the organic law. cannot be con- 
stitutionally limited, inasmuch as any limitation would deprive them 
of the power enunciated in the second Article of the Bill of Rights" 

as inalienable, and inasmuch as the Constitution might defer :• ' 

mcnts to remote future time, or might render them impossib 
that one generation cannot, in this manner, bind future gene- 

" House Jour. 144, 314-316. 

".Article H of the declaration of rights of the constiti; 
1864 reads as follows: "That all government of rii:' • 
from the people, is founded in compact only, and in • 
for the good of the whole: and they have at all ti:-... . 
alienable right to alter, refonn. or alnjlish their fonn 01 ijovcm- 
mcnt, in such nianncr as they may deem expedient." 



96 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

"3rd. That subject to the limitation of the first resolution, the 
people can at any time change or alter the organic constitutional 
law; but that any attempt to do so by irregular unauthorized action 
by a portion of the people, would be of dangerous tendency and 
consequences." 

The other resolutions were offered by C. C. Magruder, 
Jr., of Prince George's County, on February 7, and were 
also passed the same day, as follows :*" — 

" Whereas, the House of Delegates by their legislation, are en- 
gaged in measures of reform, touching the interests of the whole 
people of Maryland, and to that end are in supposed conflict with 
the Constitution of 1864; therefore we deem it proper to adopt and 
publish the following resolutions : . . . That we recognize the exist- 
ing Constitution of Maryland, as the supreme law of the State, sub- 
ject to Article 5 of the Declaration of Rights," to which every citizen 
must yield obedience; but the people have at all times, an inherent 
and inalienable right to abolish or reform said Constitution. 

" That revolutions by the people are always justifiable when their 
government has failed of its purposes, when ' life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness ' are endangered, and all constitutional provi- 
sions for their protection and rights are denied them. 

" That we hold to the doctrine, that the three coordinate branches 
of the State Government of Maryland represent the sovereignty 
of the people thereof, and that all acts done by them, each in its 
respective sphere, in pursuance of constitutional authority, are ex- 
pressive of the popular will; it follows, that the State of Mary- 
land, in the future as in the past, guided by a spirit of public policy, 
will always endeavor to advance her own interests, as also that of 
her citizens, without regard to sections or localities. 

" That the call for a Constitutional Convention, emanating from 
this Legislature, is in pursuance of the rights of reform under the 
existing Constitution; and all efforts to frustrate the wishes of the 
people for a change in their organic law are without their sanction 
and authority. 

" That the Act already passed, enfranchising those citizens of 
Maryland, who under the Constitution are compelled to perform 
militia duty, pay taxes, etc., but are deprived of the right of 
electors, is indicative of the sense of the people on the subject, and 

*° House Jour., 254-255, 316. 

" " The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in 
pursuance thereof, being the supreme law of the land, every citizen 
of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and Gov- 
ernment of the LJnited States, and is not bound by any law or 
ordinance of this State in contravention or subversion thereof." 



The Reform Lc(jislaturc of i86j. 97 

we present the fact to (tlic) whole country, as cvlncinjj their desire 
to forget the late civil convulsions of the land, and to join in 
reciprocal endeavors to sustain the enduring fame of the com- 
monwealth." 

The House of ndcgatcs, on January 3, 1867, the day 
upon which it orj^anizcd, had appointed a committee of five 
men to meet jointly with a like nunilK-r from the Senate in 
order to prepare a hill to take the st-nse of the people of the 
State upon the iiuestion of calling a convention to frame a 
new constitution. This hill was reported on January 10, 
and finally passed the House on February 6, by the vote of 
54 yeas to 20 nays.*" 

The Senate received the measure froin the H«nise the 
same day, and on February 16 a majority of the committee 
on judicial proceedings reported the bill unfavorably, but 
the minority handed in a favorable report upon it as a 
" measure demanded by public .sentiment and the exigencies 
of the State." The latter was considered after great delay, 
and being brought to a vote on March 9, was passed, yeas 
15, nays 7. Lieutenant-Governor Cox at once declared the 
bill rejected, since by Section 2, Article XI, of the constitu- 
tion of 1864 it must be pas.sed by a two-thirds vote of all 
members elected, and it had failed to secure this numl)er. 
An appeal from the decision of the chair was at once taken, 
and the action negatived by the vote of yeas 7, nays 14. 
After some further consideration the bill was finally passed 
only on March 20, when the required two thirtls of all the 
senators elected voted in the affirmative.*' 

The delay was caused by dissension within the Demo- 
cratic-Conservative forces, which threatened for a time to 
break the newly formed alliance. To understand these dis- 
sensions it will be necessary to retrace our steps to the first 
few weeks of the session of the legislature. The feeling 
against the Radical government of r>altimore was so strong 
that the General Assembly had decided to legislate the city 
officials out of office. With this object in view, a bill passed 



'Honsc Jour., 10. 12, 51, 276-^70. 1053. 
Senate Jour., 158, 247, 510, SX'Sxt, 540. 717. 

7 



98 The Self -Re construction of Maryland. 

the House of Delegates on January 21, and the Senate on 
the next day, which provided that a new mayor and city 
council should be elected on Wednesday, February 6, 1867, 
and that municipal elections were to be held in Baltimore 
regularly thereafter in the month of February instead of in 
the autumn. The newly chosen mayor was to assume office 
on February 13, one week after the election, and the city 
council in March.'** 

Meanwhile, the Baltimore City Council on January 22, 
1867, the same day upon which the above bUl passed the 
Senate, by a unanimous vote appropriated $20,000 to be 
placed in the hands of the mayor, with the instructions that 
he was to employ counsel and take the necessary legal steps 
" to test the validity of the action of the General Assembly, 
in their recent legislation, for the removal of the existing 
city government."*^ Henry Stockbridge and Archibald 
Stirling, Jr., were retained as cotmsel. On January 30, 
Judge Alexander, of the Circuit Court, upon the application 
of Allen E. Forrester and John N. Ing, granted an injunc- 
tion against the mayor and city council, restraining them 
from spending or contracting to spend the money.*^ 

Prior to this, a Democratic-Conservative city convention 
had met (January 25) and after sessions lasting altogether 
two days, nominated Robert T. Banks as its candidate for 
mayor.*^ Banks was of Democratic antecedents, and his 
nomination caused great dissatisfaction among those Con- 
servatives who had lately allied themselves with the Demo- 
cratic party, leading to discord and confusion among the 
members of the legislature, who must act together in order 
to preserve their two-thirds majority over the Republicans.*^ 

In addition, the Conservatives were apprehensive that the 
Radicals might be successful in fighting the city bill before 

"House Jour., 9, 46, 64, 89, 136; Senate Jour., 45, 46, 55, 76, 77, 
80, 83-85 ; Sun. Jan. 23, 1867. 

■"Jour, and Proc. ist Branch City Council, 1866-7, 234; Journal 
2n(i Branch. 137. 

^•Sun, Tan. 31, 1867. 

" Sun, Jan. 2?,, 1867. 

** See the statement of Wm. Kimmel, of Baltimore, in the State 
Senate on Feb. 6 as published in the Sun for Feb. 7, 1867. 



The Reform Lcijisliiturc c/ ;,VVi-. r,Q 

the courts, since grave doubts of its constitutionality had 
arisen. It was found to Iw special lejjislation. and to \)c 
contrary t<> tlie general election law of the State which 
rcciuired a much longer notice of an election to Ik* given. 
The Conservative leaders, in consideration of the legal and 
political questions surrounding the matter, wisely decided to 
abandon the bill, which was as yet unsigned by the gover- 
nor, and it was repealed by the Senate on February i by 
the vote of 19 to i. and by the unanimous vote of the House 
on February 4.*" 

However, the jealousies aroused in the Democratic- 
Conservative party by the nomination of Banks were not to 
be so easily allayed. Although it had been found at first 
that the necessary two-thirds majority could not be secured 
in either house, yet the repeal of the city bill caused the 
passage of the convention bill by the House of Delegates 
on February 6.''*' But unfortunately for the speedy success 
of the latter measure, certain residents of Baltimore con- 
tinued to demand the removal of the Radical city officials, 
hence a new bill of the required character was introduced 
in the legislature by the Conservatives. This caused 
trouble in the Senate, where a deadlock was threatened. 

Mr. Knott, who was a member of the House of Delegates 
from Baltimore City, gives an interesting account of the 

"Senate Jour., 134-137. 147 (the single negative vote was cast 
by a Republican. Jacoli Tome, of Cecil Co.) ; House Jour, 225, 
235. 244; Sun, Feb. 2 and 5, 1867. Scliarf, 111. (iQl (note), says: 
" At the session of i}^68. the Legislature .ippointcd a conunittce of 
investlKation in regard to the alleged corruptions practiced . . . when 
the following facts were gleaned: Of the $^0,000 appropriated by 
the City Council. Messrs. Archibald Stirling. Jr.. Henry Stixkbridgc 
and .Milton Whitney, the retained counsel of the Mayor, received 
$2,000 each: the remaining $14,000 was deposited with Alfred Mace, 
then clerk of the Superior Court. an<l what became of it roulc! not 

be learned. F.x-ShcrifT \Vm. Thomson received $10,000 r ■■• ' 

by individuals and converted it to his own use. Of 

drawn out of the city treasury by the Mnvor. *n.oon wn 

by means of assessments on office-hoM' 

by individuals of the radical party. 1 

remainder, and the claim was tinally • 

writer can find no records of this, and l^ ,^lIl;tlKly luclir.cd t ■ J u!t 

the truth of the statement. 

" Sec page 97. 



100 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

way in which the matter was finally compromised. He 
states^^ that there were two members of the Senate who had 
become opponents of the convention bill on account of the 
controversy over the nomination of Banks, and without 
both of their votes the bill would fail of passage. At this 
time meetings were being held in Baltimore and delegations 
were visiting Annapolis, all urging the enactment of a 
municipal bill, even at the sacrifice of the convention bill. 
At last, the Conservatives of Baltimore were with some dif- 
ficulty persuaded that without a new constitution all the 
reforms for which the allied party stood would perhaps be 
lost, and that a convention bill could be passed only by the 
sacrifice of the municipal bill. In addition, the promise was 
made by the Democrats that the latter measure would be 
incorporated in the new constitution when finally drafted.^- 
To increase the danger to the Conservative cause, the Repub- 
lican state central committee threatened that Federal aid 
would be invoked should the convention bill be passed, on 
the ground that the legislature was illegally elected in vio- 
lation of the constitution of 1864 and of the registry law, 
it having been chosen by and being largely composed of dis- 
loyalists and " disfranchised Rebels," and that a call for a 
convention in disregard of the existing state constitution 
would be revolutionary. 
Mr. Knott continues : — 

" It was also boldly asserted that should such [a] convention as- 
semble, a government under the Constitution of 1864 vi^ould at once 
be organized, and Frederick City, it was said, was selected as the 
place for its organization. This government would appeal to Con- 
gress for recognition and to the war department — then under the 
exclusive control of Secretary Stanton — for military support. ... A 
caucus of the Democratic-Conservative members of the Legislature 
was . . . called, two weeks before the close of the session. In this 
caucus Mr. Knott offered the following resolution: 'Resolved, That 
the Democratic-Conservative members of the Legislature in caucus 
assembled, hereby pledge themselves to lay aside for the present 
every other measure of a political character, including the bill now 

" Nelson's Baltimore, 566-576. 

''See Article XI of constitution of 1867. 



The Reform Lejislalure of iSdj. lOI 

pciuliiiK ill the Senate for a special municipal election in Raltimnre, 
and to postpone all private business ; and to devote the remaining 
part of the session, if necessary, to the passage of the convention 
bill and of the military bill for the orKanization of the militia of the 
State, to the prompt passage of which measures we hereby pledge 
ourselves.' This rcsohitir)n was adopted with great unanimity, after 
a brief discussion, in which the absolute importance of these two 
measures was explained and insiste<l upon. These two bills were 
immediately put upon their passage antl carried through the Legis- 
lature, the two recalcitrants in the Senate having been won over 
by the sacrifice of the Baltimore numicipal election bill."" 

The convention bill as finally passed provided as foil. <\\ - : 
An election was to be held on the second Wednesday in 
April, 1867, at which 

"every person entitled to vote for delegates to the General Assem- 
bly [should 1 vote on the question of a call for a convention, to 
frame a new constitution and form of government, with a clause 
therein prohibiting the Legislature from making any law providing 
for payment by this State for persons heretofore held as slaves." 

At the same time, members of the convention were to be 
voted for, to have the same qualifications as then required 
f(ir membership in the House of Delegates. It was at first 
proposed in the legislature to have the rcpre«^entati«»n in 
the convention based upon the legislative representation pro- 
vided by the constitution of 185 1, on the ground that the 
constitution of 18/^14 had been adopted at the i>oint of Fed- 
eral bayonets and not by the will of the people of the State. 
This idea was finally dropped as unfair to Baltimore City, 
whose representation would be made unduly small, so it was 
decided to take as a basis the representation contained in the 
existing constitution with some slight modifications, which 
gave an aggregate of fourteen more members to the counties 
of the Eastern and Western .*^hores. where the Democratic 
party was especially influential.'^* 

"It should be mentioned that both houses on March 8 passed 
.1 bill by which the General Assembly (in joint session* « ,.; i„ fn- 
ture to elect a l>oard of three police comnussi^mcrs ■ c 

City. Those chosen at this scsmom wrrc Lcfcvre I « 

r.. Carr. and \Vm. H. B. Fusselbaiigh (Senate Jour. y-. . . w>e 
jniir.. 813-814. <).'H-<)J9). 

"American, Apr. 2, 1867; Nelson's naltimore, 566. See the Hate- 



I02 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

It was further provided that the governor of the State 
should declare the results of the election by proclamation, 
and in case the vote was favorable, the convention should 
assemble at Annapolis on the second Wednesday of May, 
1867. Its members were to take the same oath as to the 
discharge of their duties as then required of members of 
the House of Delegates, their pay to be five dollars per diem 
and mileage, and the sessions to continue till the duties were 
discharged for which the convention was called. The 
power to judge of the validity of the election and of the 
qualifications of its members was given to the convention, 
and it was to prescribe the time, the rules and the regula- 
tions according to which the constitution and form of gov- 
ernment that should be made were to be submitted to the 
voters of the State for its adoption or rejection. No clergy- 
man of any denomination, no senator or representative in 
the Congress of the United States, no judge of a state court, 
no clerk of any court, no state's attorney, auditor, register 
of wills or any sheriff was eligible to membership in the 
convention. Finally, the governor was to receive the re- 
turns of the votes cast for or against the new constitution, 
and if the same were adopted, he was to issue a proclama- 
tion declaring the fact, and to take such further steps as the 
constitution might provide, in order to carry the same into 
effect.^5 

The General Assembly adjourned on March 23, 1867. 
As we have seen, it changed radically the political condi- 
tions in the State as they had existed at the close of the 
Civil War. During this period the Republicans had been 
by no means quiet. The account given above of their ac- 
tions in regard to the senatorship, the municipal bill and 



ment of Francis Thomas in the House of Representatives on March 
28, 1867 (Cong. Globe, ist Sess., 40th Cong., 1867, 415-419). The fol- 
lowing fourteen counties were each given one additional delegate — 
St. Mary's, Kent, Calvert, Charles, Talbot, Somerset, Dorchester, 
Prince George's, Queen Anne's, Worcester, Caroline, Montgomery, 
Howard and Anne Arundel. 

°^ The complete text of the bill may be found in the Sun for 
March 22, 1867, also in Proceedings Maryland State Convention, 
1867, 38-41. 



Tlic Reform Legislature of iSoj. 103 

other matters is ample proof of the fact. They were 
resolved not to give up the fislit without an cfTort to rcgnin 
the lost ground, and realizing the utter helplessness of their 
party at the ballot-l)ox, they began to look to Washington 
for aid. The national government was now almost com- 
pletely in the hands of Thaddeus .Stevens, Charles .Sumner, 
Henry Wilson, George S. Boutwell, P>enjamin I'. Wade and 
others of like views, backed up by large Republican majori- 
ties in both houses of Congress." Surely they might be 
expected to lend a helping hand to their defeated Radical 
brethren who were right at the doors of the national 
capital ! 

As early as January, 1866, when the bill for the extension 
of the powers of the Freedmcn's P.urcau was under consid- 
eration in the United States Senate, Senator John A. J. 
Creswell desired that the provisions of the act be extended 
so as to include Marj-land among the late rebellious States, 
saying that returned Confederate soldiers and other disloy- 
alists were maltreating the negroes there, and sometimes 
even murdering them. Thereupon Reverdy Johnson, the 
senior senator from Maryland, vigorously denied this, say- 
ing that negroes were as safe in his State as in Massa- 
chusetts."^ 

Again, in December of the same year, after the Radicals 
had been overwhelmingly defeated in the State, Hon. 
Francis Thomas, of the fourth district, the sole Republican 
congressional candidate who had been elected in the face 
of the Conserv'ative tidal wave, proposed to appeal to Con- 
gress to " reconstruct Maryland," on the ground that its 
government was not republican in form. The .Xmerican 
said this would be a " patriotic and statesmanlike act " on 
his part."" 

On January 21, 1867, Hamilton Ward, of New York, sub- 
mitted a preamble and resolution in the House of Reprc- 



•* Sec Dunning, Reconstruction. Political and Economic. 86-89^ 
"Sec the Sun, Feb. i. 1866, for a report of the .l,!..itc. ..s well as 
a stronR article in support of Scn.itor Johns<M! 
•* Sec American for Dec. 4 and i<>, 1866. 



I04 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

sentatives which stated that, in consideration of the fact that 
large numbers of disloyal persons had voted at the last elec- 
tion in ]Marv'land, in defiance of the provisions of the state 
constitution, and because it was 

" alleged that armed forces of the United States were ordered by 
Federal authoritv' to, and did, cooperate with the executive of the 
State of Maryland and others who were engaged with him in over- 
riding the constitution and laws," 

it was therefore resolved 

" that the committee on elections inquire whether the laws were 
violated, whether the President used or threatened to use the mili- 
tary, [and] whether [it was] upon [the] requisition of [the] Gov- 
ernor of ^laryland. ..." 

This was agreed to by the vote of 104 yeas, 35 nays, 52 
not voting.^® General Charles E. Phelps, of the third dis- 
trict, actively opposed the resolution, both speaking and 
voting against it. As a consequence, a day or so later both 
branches of the Baltimore City Council passed resolutions 
condemning his action in the matter as follows: — 

" Whereas, it appears from the debates in Congress regarding the 
resolution of inquiry into the recent Maryland elections, that the 
Hon. Charles E. Phelps, . . . took it upon himself to assert that the 
proposed inquiry was not in accordance with the wishes of any great 
number of Union men of Maryland. 

" Be it resolved, that the Hon. Charles E. Phelps has no authority 
to speak for the Union men of Baltimore, as his political connections 
are such as to prevent him from either knowing or representing 
their wishes. 

" Resolved, that the thanks of the loyal people of Baltimore be, 
and they are hereby tendered, to the Hon. Hamilton Ward, for 
pressing his resolution of inquiry to a passage, and to the House of 

*' House Jour., 2nd Sess., 39th Cong., 204-206. Cong. Globe, 2nd 
Sess., 39th Cong., 1866-7, Pt. i, 619. Mr. Ward stated that he offered 
his resolution '" at the instance of prominent Union m.en of the State 
of Maryland, they believing that their only remedy is an appeal to 
the Congress of the United States. They believe that the Executive 
of the State of Maryland, who in imitation of a higher example has 
been guilty of apostasy to his party and to the principles upon 
which he was elected, has handed over the Unionists, bound hand 
and foot, to the men who, by the Constitution of the State, were 
deprived of the exercise of the elective franchise, because they had 
been engaged in rebellion against the United States." 



The Reform Legislature of iS6j. 105 

Representatives for the interest nianifc.ste<l in their affairs by ii« 
adoption. 

" Resolved, that the exiRcncics of the times dcmnnd that the late 
rchellionists and present revolutionists of Maryland, who have ac- 
quired power throuRh the treachery of Governor Swann. under the 
cncouraRement of President Johnson, should be prevented by the 
United States from consummatinR their revolutionary projects, 
which arc fraught with danger to the State and to the country. 

" Resolved, that in the nicasure inaugnrated. an<I in part acted 
upon, by the Legislature of Maryland, the corrupt bargaining away 
of tlic rights of the people for a scat in the Unitc<l States Senate, 
the unprecedented outrage upon the municipality of Baltimore by an 
act attempting to set aside certain provisions of its charter, the pro- 
jected enfranchisement law, and the bill (o call a new Constitutional 
Convention, . . . wc recognize the same revolutionary and rebellious 
spirit which animated the same parties in 1861, and wc believe 
it to be part of another organized Southern movement detrimental 
to the Union, and calculated to prevent any peaceful adjustment of 
pending national difticulties. 

" Resolved, that, as tlic Constitution of the United States guarantees 
to every State a republican form of government. . . . that the people 
of Baltimore, and of the State of Maryland, arc entitled to pro- 
tection from the revolutionary purposes of the Governor and I-cg- 
islaturc of Maryland."" 

On the side of Congress it may be added tliat on January 
29, 1867, the committee on elections was by unanimous 
consent discharged from further consideration of Ward's 
rcsokitions, which were referred to the committee on the 
judiciary. On March 2. following, the matter was dropi>e'l 
by vote of the Mouse."* 

On February 27, i8<^»7, a Republican state conventi«Mi 
was held in Front Street Theatre, Baltimore, with Dr. 
Charles 1 1. Ohr, of Allegany County, as president. This 
convention passed resolutions which denounced the conven- 
tion bill, then before the legislature, as unconstitutional and 
anti-republican in form, and deman<led that no change l>c 
made in the existing con.>tituti<Mi except by " impartial man- 
hood suflfragc without regard to color." Otherwise, the 
convention threatened an "appeal to Congress to provide 



"Jour, ist Branch City Council, 1S66-7. 2i\-2ii\ Jour. irnX Branch, 
141-14.V 
"House Jour., 2nd Scss., .V)th C.ni.'. .'S.j. foj. 



io6 The Self -Re construction of Maryland, 

for the assemTDling of a conTention in this State, on the basis 
of the reconstnaction bill, and to organize a loyal State gDV- 
emment with impartial snfirage,''^ We tbtis see that the 
Conserratfre leaders had been right in liieir prophedes, and 
that the Radicals did adopt the polides of their national 
brethren — negro suffrage and aH 

Howerer, none of these threats restrained the legislamre, 
and it proceeded upon the conrse of legislation mapped out 
by its leaders, -until it had finished its work and adjonmed. 
So the Radicals imdertook to cany out their plans, and 
formally made an appeal to the national gorermnent. On 
March i8, 1867, Hon. Frands Thomas submitted a resoln- 
tion -srhich -sras agreed to by the Honse of Representatires, 
and irhich provided that the jndidary committee shonld 
""inqtdre -whether the people of Maryland hare a State 
government repnbBcan in form, and snch as Congress can, 
consistently -with the req-nirements of the ConstitndDn, 
recognize and guarantee."*'^ 

In addition to this resolution. Congress recdved also sev- 
eral direct appeals from the Radical party in Maryland. 
On Mardi 25, 1867, a nnemorial from the minority members 
of the legislainre -was ** respectfully presented," in which 
'"the alarming condition of affairs in this State" was set 
forth as follows : — 

"Ths. General Assembh- of Mardand [is] aLont to adjocm after 
a sesaon, . . . memoraHe for evD.. , . . Elected in great part br the 
deliberaie -violaiiori of the election la-w of lie State, bj lie vot» 
of men -srio -were in acnre accord -wrri tie rer>eILion and "srhose 
hatred to -tie g-ovemment rendered tie presence of militarr force 
dming the -war necessary to prevent their active aid to the rebels in 
arms, and in spite of -which tier did give large aid in men and 
money, tiey have marked their sessi'On br a series of acts to -which 
-we d^ire to call your attention." 

After mentioning the fact that there were J20,ooo Mary- 
land soldiers in the Confederate army, the resoltrbons con- 
tinue: — 

"'Sim and Americsn, Feb. 28, 1867. 

°^ House Joar.. ist Sess., 40rh Congress, 61. 



The Reform Lctjislaturc of iS6j-. 107 

" These men liave nearly all returned, and a large etniKration from 
the South since the war has largely added to that nuinl)€r. By a 
doubtful construction of a clause in the existing Constitution this 
General Assembly, thus electe«l. has enfranchised all white men, no 
matter what treason they may have committed, and has thus added 
to the voting population al>out 30,000 persons who have only Litely 
ceased an armed resistance to the Rovernment. Not satisfied with 
this, they have just passed a militia bill which . . . has made all 
white rebels . . . part of the militia." 

Further, the complaint was made that the legislature had 
passed a hill for calling a constitutional convention in the 
illegal manner described alx)ve, particular stress Ijeing laid 
on the fact that increased representation had l)een given 
to the southern counties of the State, which were stigma- 
tized as " the old. wornout counties, which were fas] rebel- 
lious as South Carolina." The resolutions closed with the 
following appeal : — 

" These acts, we submit, arc in violation of the State and national 
law, oppressive, revolutionary and danRerous to the order and peace 
of the nation. The Union men of Maryland arc groaning under the 
tyranny. They arc now oppressed by verdicts of disloyal juries in 
many counties. Immigration to the State except from the South, 
is stopped, and some loyal men arc deliberating on leaving the State. 
The most, however, arc ready by all proper means, at all personal 
hazards, to resist this infamous attempt of oppression. The danger 
of blood.-ihed is imminent, the time is perilous. We call on Congress 
not to adjourn before settling this grave matter, which if not settled, 
may startle them in their recess by something worse than the mas- 
sacre of New Orleans, although not .so unequal and one-sided. We 
earnestly ask on the part of the majority of the people of Maryland, 
deprived of legal voice, except through us, a minority of the general 
assembly, that Congress will guarantee to us a republican form of 
Government on the only basis of right, truth, and peace, — impartial 
suffrage without respect to race and color, as it has already guaran- 
teed it to the Southern States."** 

On the very saitie day, Senator James M. N'ye, of Nevada. 
presented a long series of resolutions from the Grand Coun- 
cil of the Union League of Maryland, passed by it on 
March 20, 1867. This memorial, after a bitter arraignment 
of the " disloyal " acts of the Democratic-' 



l^.TV 



House Misc., ist Sess., 40th Cong.. Doc 37. 



io8 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

party, closed by "earnestly pray[ing] the Congress of the 
United States, as far as practicable, to extend to IMaryland 
the principles of the military reconstruction law, and to se- 
cure [to] all loyal citizens in the State the right of suf- 
frage." It was signed by Henry Stockbridge, grand presi- 
dent, and Charles H. Gatch, grand secretary.*^^ 

On March 27 the Republican state convention of Feb- 
ruary 27 reassembled in Front Street Theatre at the call 
of Dr. Ohr, its president. A series of resolutions was 
passed and submitted to Congress on March 28, which is 
herewith given in extenso, since therein will be found the 
plan of campaign agreed upon by the Radical leaders and 
also an explanation of what is shortly to follow. 

After thanking the Republican members of the General 
Assembly for addressing the memorial to Congress and 
urging that body to grant the request for Federal inter- 
ference contained therein, it was resolved ( i ) to " oppose 
any new convention set up in subversion of the existing 
constitution under the convention bill, which does not ex- 
press the will of the majority of the people without regard 
to color " and " with the aid of the loyal representatives of 
the nation and by all means in [our] power [to] resist and 
destroy any such constitution as a revolutionary usurpa- 
tion;" (2) to take no part in the approaching election for 
delegates to the convention other than a general vote against 
the call for a convention; (3) that should the call be sus- 
tained by a majority of the voters, the state central com- 
mittee should issue a call for district meetings throughout 
the State " for the choice by ballot, on the basis of uni- 
versal manhood suffrage, of delegates to a State constitu- 
tutional convention," representation in which should be 
based upon the provisions of the " present constitution of the 
State," and finally, (4) that such a convention, if called, 
should meet in Baltimore on the first Wednesday in June, 
and " proceed to form a Constitution based upon universal 
manhood suffrage."^^ 

** House Misc., ist Sess., 40th Cong., Doc. 28. 

"House Misc., ist Sess., 40th Cong., Doc. 32; Sun and American, 



7'hc Reform Legislature of iS^,- 109 

Francis Tliomas supported these resoluti(>ii> m a v:;;Mrous 
speech in the House of Representatives on March 28, in 
tlic course of which he said : — 

" I utterly deny lure . . . that tlurc is a republican government in 
Maryland. This tyranny and oppression no free people ought to 
submit to. . . . What arc we to do? We arc jwwerlc^s unless Con- 
gress interposes. And has O^nnrcss that power? The United 
States have power to guarantee a republican form of government 
to all the States. How is Congress to exercise that power? By 
an Enabling Act. ... Is it unreasonable to expect that the Congress 
of the United States, which has expended so much bloo<l and 
treasure to rescue one section of the Union from the political domi- 
nation held by those plotting the overthrow of the government, will 
hesitate to exercise the unquestioned power conferred upon it under 
the Constitution, to rescue Maryland from the hands of persons as 
thoroughly disloyal and hostile to this government at this moment 
as arc any in the States further South ?'*" 

Finally, before we leave the subject of the apj)eal of the 
Radicals to Congress for aid, we nuist inentitm a nieniorial 
from the mayor and city council of lialtiinore, presented 
on March 30. It began by reviewing the course of events 
in Maryland during the war, and concluded with a perora- 
tion, which was in part as follows: — 

" And now, . . . wc appeal to you as the supreme law-making 
power of the land, to ask you if there can be found no remedy to 
correct these monstrous evils? We ask you in the name of those 
men whose bones arc now blcacliing on a hundred battlctields, in 
the name of their widows and destitute and helpless orphans, in 
the name of the blood and treasure spent to subdue the late relnrl- 
lion, in the name of the Union men of the State of Mar>-land. who 
have been tried in the furnace, yea in the hot hell of treason in this 

March 2!?>, 1867. When these resolutions were presented to the I'nitcd 
States Senate on Mch. 28. Senator Reverdy Johnson made the fol- 
lowing statement, which is of interest as showing his position upon 
the question of calling the consiiintional convention: "I agree m 
the opinion . . . that the conveiiti<in which is proM.i.l > r Jiy the 
recent legislation of my State should not be callc<! \-. In 

tlie present conditifui of the country, and the excr : it is 

producing, and the state of feeling in Maryland, i s. . . 1 *tieh 

a convention not only unfortunate, but fraught with uv^ir or !r>\ of 
peril to tiie peace and prosperity <^f ny Stntr. nrvl 1 sh.Tii cmlcavor 
... to impress this view upon 1 1 hope to succeetl 

in it." (Cong. Globe, ist Sess ;.j8, ) 

"Cong. Globe, ist Sess., 40th » . ;. 



no The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

State — in the name of liberty, God, right and law, is there no power 
sufficiently strong to save us from drinking of this damnable cup? 
Must we stand idle and look on with composure whilst we are be- 
ing robbed of our dearest rights, and whilst all the sacred forms of 
law are disregarded by our treasonable enemies?'"^ 

It will be seen later on that Congress made no effort to 
interfere with the local affairs of Maryland but wisely left 
the State to work out its own political salvation. The vio- 
lent appeal of the Radicals finally resulted in a complete 
anticlimax. 

In order to leave no stone unturned in the effort to block 
the course of state reconstruction now being carried out 
by the Democrats and Conservatives in Maryland, Alex- 
ander M. Rogers, Benjamin Deford, John Clark, William 
Kennedy and Johns Hopkins on Saturday, March 30, 1867, 
filed before Judge Martin in the Superior Court of Balti- 
more City an application for an injunction prohibiting the 
sheriff and police commissioners from advertising or 
holding the election for a constitutional convention. The 
application stated that the convention bill was unconstitu- 
tional in that it was not in accord with the method pre- 
scribed by the constitution of 1864. In support of this 
statement the applicants charged, first, that the bill called 
a special election instead of providing for a vote at the reg- 
ular election in the fall ; second, that it provided for a dual 
election — on the convention and the delegates at the same 
time; third, that representation would not be according to 
the constitutional method. Alexander M. Rogers appeared 
as counsel for the complainants, and S. Teackle Wallis and 
Orville Horwitz for the respondents."'' 

On April 8 a majority of the court, Justice Bartol dis- 
senting, dismissed the appeal on the ground of want of jur- 
isdiction under the ruling of the court in the case of Steig- 
erwald vs. Winans (17 ]\Iaryland Reports, 62). 

The vote on the convention took place, as provided by 
the convention bill, on April 10, 1867, and resulted, as had 

^ ist Sess., 40th Cong., House Misc., Doc. 34. 
°' Sun and American for April i and 2, 1867. 



The Reform Legislature of iS6j. \ i i 

been expected, in a sweeping victory for the Conservatives 
and Democrats.'" Since the Republicans had nominated 
no candidates, a solid Democratic-Conservative convcntif)n 
was chosen to make a new constituti(ni for the State. The 
total number of votes cast in the election was 58.718. Of 
these, 34.534 were for a convention, 24,136 apainst, and 
48 ballots were blank. This vote gave a majority of 10.350 
in favor of a convention. It is said that the election was 
one of the most (|uiet and orderly held for some years, 
and the l^altimore Sun thought'' that party lines were 
largely disregarded. 

In accordance with the provisions of the convention bill, 
on April 20 Governor Swann issued a proclamation stat- 
ing the results of the election and calling the delegates 
to assemble in Annapolis on the second Wednesday of 
May. When the day arrived, the Baltimore American an- 
nounced the advent of the convention with the following 
pessimistic forecast : — 

" Today is the recommencement of an actual conflict in the State 
of Maryland. ... In a word, a war for office will be inaiiRurated. . . . 
This is the real and sole object to be accomplished. However art- 
fully it may be disguised at first, we predict it will become apparent 
to the most incredulous as soon as the plans are sufficiently devel- 
oped and ready for active operations. The Rrcat thing to be ac- 
complished is to put out Union men, regardless of merit, qualifica- 
tion and the public interest, and to put in Secessionists. . . . This 
convention assembles to make war on men who have been honest 
and faithful public servants. Having accomplished, through the last 
Legislature, all that could have been fairly and honorably desired 
by any other party, this was all that was left for selfish and party 
malice to achieve. The convention was called, and now assembles, 
to accomplish this."" 

The Radical organ was only partially right, for while 
tb.c whole state government, with the exception of Gov- 

"At the same time a vote was taken in Baltimore City on the 
question of allowing street-cars to run on Sunday. It resulted in a 
victory for that measure also, lo.gis vt.tcs being cast in favor of it, 
gj<;j in opposition. 

''Issue for Apr. 11, 1867. Sec also Frederick Republican Citizen 
for April 12. 

" M.iy 8, 1867. 



112 The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

eriior Swann, was legislated out of office by the convention, 
we shall find that the general character of its work was 
of a permanent nature. 

The Republican state convention assembled for a third 
time on May 14, 1867, in Broadway Hall, Baltimore, both 
white and colored delegates, it is said, being present. Bal- 
timore City and all the counties of the State were represented 
with the exception of Calvert, Dorchester and St. Mary's. 
Senator John A. J. Creswell presided, and after some dis- 
cussion the idea of an opposition constitutional convention 
was abandoned, it being decided instead to await the result 
of the Annapolis convention then in session, and to unite 
all efforts to defeat the new constitution at the polls, in 
case a provision for manhood suffrage should be omitted."^ 

"Sun and American, May 15, 1867. 



CHAPTER V. 
Thi: Constitutional Convention. 

The constitutional convention met at noon on Wednesday, 
May 8, 1867, in tlic hall of the House of Delegates, in the 
city of Annapolis. As mentioned before, its entire member- 
ship of 118 delegates was of the DenKxratic-Conservativc 
party, since the Radicals had nominated no candidates in op- 
position. 

Among the members were forty-five lawyers, ten of whom 
added the interests of " farmers " to their profession. There 
were thirty-seven who were known simply as farmers, also 
one member who styled himself a " planter." In addition 
there were twenty-two men of " business," nine physicians, 
two mechanics, one editor, and one conveyancer. As can 
be seen, the convention was largely comjiosed of business 
and professional men of Maryland, and included the names 
of some of the most important families. Many of the dele- 
gates were at a later day prominent ofiice-holders in the state 
and nation. George W. Covington and James R. Brewer, of 
the Worcester County and Baltimore City delegations resjK-c- 
tively, have told the writer' that the convention was most 
harmonious, and in particular that there was no rivalry 
between the city and county members. Economy was a 
ruling motive, hence the debates were not reported except 
for the newspapers, and only the proceedings were publishctl 
by authority of the State.' Both gentlemen state that Gov- 

* Mr. Covington also remarked upon the f.ict that, the Democratic- 
Conservative party havinR just been orK'atii/ed, there was great 
harmony and unanimity of fccIinR in the party. 

'The del)atcs were larRely of minor interest, no \ircM •\-'--\.'>nt 
of policy divicling the delegates (see .Sun, >' ' >n 

August 16 the convention passed an order apji: •>« 

paid two "reporters," for services rendered 1-. 'g 

the debates for the newspapers of Baltimore and clscwhcfc vi'fv<., 
674-678). 

8 113 



114 ^^^^ Self-Reconstruction of Maryland. 

ernor Swann was personally popular with the convention, 
and that its members often consulted him. 

Several Union soldiers were in the delegations (i. e., 
Colonel William P. Maulsby, of Frederick, and Colonel 
James Wallace, of Dorchester), and John F. Lee, of Prince 
George's County, had been at one time in the Confederate 
army.^ John F. Dent of St. Mary's County had been a 
member of the conventions of 185 1 and 1864. Ephraim 
Bell, of Baltimore County, Benjamin B. Chambers, of Cecil 
County, William T. Goldsborough, of Dorchester County, 
and Samuel S. Mc^Master, of Worcester County, were dele- 
gates to the former and Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset County, 
Fendall Marbury, of Prince George's, and Charles S. Per- 
ran, of Calvert County, to the latter. 

The convention was in session altogether three months 
and nine days, and the average attendance was about sev- 
enty-eight. There were only three days on which there 
was no quorum present (i. e., one half of the members 
elected). The largest attendance was one hundred and nine 
on May 8 (the opening day of the convention) and on May 
24. The smallest was forty-seven on June 10. One ses- 
sion a day was held until July 23, and after that date there 
were altogether fifteen evening sessions on various days. 

The convention was organized by the unanimous choice 
of Richard B. Carmichael, of Queen Anne's County, to be 
its president.* In accepting the office. Judge Carmichael 
made a short speech, which contained this significant para- 
graph :— 

" It would not be becoming in me to attempt to foreshadow the 
result of the proceedings of this Convention by reference in detail 
to any of its measures. They are unknown to me. It is only for 
me to say that you have been called here to frame a new Constitu- 
tion or to adopt that which has had an existence, de facto, here for a 

* Authority of Mr. John M. Carter, of Baltimore. 

* Mr. Covington states that Messrs. Isaac D. Jones, of Somerset, 
Thomas J. McKaig, of Allegany, and John F. Dent, of St. Mary's, 
were each ambitious to be president of the convention. However, 
Judge Carmichael was particularly favored by the delegates, who 
sympathized with him in his forcible removal from the Bench by 
the military in 1862. 



The Constitutional Convention. I i 5 

fcnV/ st>ace, and to express the opinion that you will discharKc the 
duty that has been imposed upon you in such a manner at to pro- 
mote the peace and order of the State, and to reflect lastiuR honor 
on yourselves. I trust. Rentlemen. that the prcKeeclinRS of this 
Convention will be marked by that harmony which shotdd prevail 
amonp men of common opinions and upon an occasion of so great 
magnitude."* 

In accordance with the provisions of the convention 
hill," Judge Daniel R. Magruder of the second judicial 
district administered to the president of the convention 
the oatli of office and of allegiance. This oath includc<l 
the following clause : — 

" I have not in any manner violated the provisions of the present, or 
the late Constitution in relation to the bribery of voters, or prevent- 
ing legal votes, or procuring illegal votes to be given, and I do fur- 
ther swear or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the Slate 
of Maryland, and support the Constitution and laws thereof, and 
that I will bear true allegiance to the United States, and support, 
protect and defend the Constitution, Laws and Government thereof 
as the supreme law of the land, any law or ordinance of this or any 
State to the contrary notwithstanding, and I do further swear, or 
afTirm. that I will, to the best of my ability, protect and defend the 
Union of the United States, and not allow the same to be broken 
up and dissolved or the Government thereof to be destroyed uncler 
any circumstances, if in my power to prevent it, and that I will, at 
all times, discountenance and oppose all political combinations hav- 
ing for their object such dissolution or destruction."' 

The president then administered the oath to the meml>crs 
of the convention. This oath was a strong guarantee that 
they were net " disloyal " in their saitiments as charged 
by the Radical party. 

Judge Carmichacl seems to have made a fair, just and 
impartial presiding oflricer," and the convention at the close 
of its session passed a unanimous vote of thanks " for the 
urbamty and fidelity with which he has discharged the 
duties of presiding officer."" 

• Proc., 8. 

• Acts of 1867, sec. 5, chap. 3^7. 

• Proc., 0-12. 

'Opinion of both Mr. Covington and Mr. Brewer. The wnler, 
however, has a strong suspicion tliat Judfic Carmichacl wa« not par- 
ticularly well versed in the rules of parliamentary procedure. 

•Proc.. 675, 711. 



Ii6 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

On June 20 the convention by unanimous vote invited 
President Andrew Johnson, about to be absent from the city 
of Washington " for the purpose of visiting one or more 
of the eastern cities," to " visit the ancient and honored 
seat of government of Maryland," since 

" it would be a source of much gratification to the members of 
this convention to have an opportunity, during the session of said 
convention, to manifest in person their respect for the patriotic 
Chief Magistrate of the nation." ^^ 

This invitation being accepted. President Johnson was form- 
ally received in the convention hall on the morning of 
June 29,^^^ Hon. William H. Seward, secretary of state, 
Governor Swann and various others of more or less 
prominence being present. Governor Swann introduced 
the President to the convention as the " great advocate of 
the people's rights," and then proceeded to deliver a grand- 
iloquent paneg}-ric upon him, of which the following will 
servx as illustration : — 

" Unawed by persecution, stripped of the powers, the essential pow- 
ers conferred by the Constitution upon his high office, powers which 
he has conscientiously and honestly exercised for the benefit of the 
whole people, in the interest of patriotism, and not of part>'; almost 
within reach of accomplishing the great object of reconstruction, to 
which his efforts have been directed, he stands here today not the 
less honored because he has failed, from untoward interferences, 
to accomplish the great object of his mission and dut>'. . . . Standing 
within these ancient walls, consecrated by so many of the proudest 
recollections of the past, we may enjoy the privilege here, in the 
State of ^laryland, at least, while not forgetting our duties as 
Statesmen and Christian men, of doing honor to Andrew Johnson, 
for in this we renew our pledges to the Constitution which comes 
down to us from our fathers of the Revolution to which this dis- 
tinguished man, this uncompromising advocate, and I may say, the 
friend of popular government throughout the world, has devoted 
his life." 

Not to be outdone. Judge Carmichael also welcomed 
the President with an oratorical outburst, saying among 
other things: — 

"Proc, 294. 

" Proc, 326, 360. 



The Constitutional Contention. ny 

" Welcome, Mr. rrcsidcnt ! Thrice welcome to the Capitol of the 
State of Maryland ! Tliis greeting throbs in every heart of thi* Con- 
vention, and would have utterance from every lip if it were in the 
order of procedure. . . . You are . . . assured that, in coming here, 
you are in the midst of your friends— friends of your policy and 

your person This occasion . . . was intended to convey to 

you and to the country the approbation of this Convention and of 
this State, for the measures adopted by your administration for 
the restoration of tlic Union. These measures, inaugurated for 
that purpose, and to bind up the wounds of a bleeding country, 
were received throughout tlie State of Mar>Iand with universal 
acceptance. It was the policy of a wise statesmanship. It was 
the promptings alike of patriotism and philanthropy. ... It 
brought men together who had held life-long differences in poli- 
tical opinions. It bound up broken ties of former friendships, 
and made them firmer and faster. It made us one people, as you 
here find us of one mind and one heart." 

President Johnson replied in a dignified speech wliich 
expressed his appreciation of the attention and honor thus 
conferred upon him, and also defended his policy in re- 
gard to the national issue of the reconstruction of the 
Southern States, Said he: — 

" If I know myself, from the beginning of the late unhappy 
civil strife, I had but a single object in view, and that was to 
preserve the harmony, peace and union of these States. It would 
have been at any time the highest object of my ambition to tic 
up the bleeding arteries which caused so much blood, and the ex- 
penditure of so much money. Now, however, there is a new era. 
and I trust wc shall have peace on earth and good will toward men. 
... I have been taugl;t to believe [the Constitution) sacred in 
principle, and for (its) preservation I have periled my all. . . . 
When the requirements and securities of the Constitution arc set 
at naught by a tyrannical majority, and their will made law, lib- 
erty is gone and despotism takes its place. ... In politics, as in 
religion, when my facts give out and reason fails, my conviction 
is strong that truth is mighty and will ultimately triumph. Though 
I may go down and perish, my proud consolation at the ' 
mcnt will be that I have done my <Iuty, and this for me ■ 
sufficient reward. ... I do hope and believe an ■ 
feeling has commenced. . . . Let us try to be one 
on and fulfil our noble destiny, and I trust through • 
which wc have just passed, a bcneficeol Providence wul iu*ure 
for us a more permanent existence." 



ii8 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

At the conclusion of these remarks, the President was 
escorted to the senate chamber, where an informal recep- 
tion was held/2 

As soon as it had completed its organization, the con- 
vention went promptly to work. The committee on rules 
made a report on May 17, which was adopted without 
amendment three days later. This report covered the 
usual matters of parliamentary procedure, with the follow- 
ing special provisions: (i) the sessions should be open 
to the public, (2) the use of the "previous question" to 
close ofif debate was allowed when demanded by a ma- 
jority of the members present, (3) yeas and nays were 
to be taken when required by five members, (4) any fif- 
teen delegates (including the president) were authorized 
to compel the attendance of members, and (5) it was re- 
quired that any subject-matter must be finally passed only 
by the vote of a majority of the whole number of members 
elected to the convention.^^ 

On May 29 it was decided to limit debate upon the 
amendment of the reports of standing or special commit- 
tees to fifteen minutes for each speech, the chairman of a 
committee to be allowed twenty minutes when a report was 
on its second reading. On June 19 the narrower limit 
was applied to every member of the convention, and in ad- 
dition no person could speak more than once on any ques- 
tion. In the final " rush " of work towards the close of 
the convention it was ordered on August 6 " that on any 
motion, order, or resolution, except amendments to Re- 
ports of Committees, no member of this Convention be 
permitted to speak oftener than once, or more than five 
minutes."^* 

And now as to the actual results of the work of the 

" Proc, 372-378- It will be recalled that the question of im- 
peaching Andrew Johnson was being discussed at this time. The 
movement looking toward this result had begun as early as Jan. 
7, 1867, but it was not till Feb. 24, 1868, that the House of Repre- 
sentatives formally impeached the President (see Rhodes, VI, 
98-99). 

"Proc, 14, 16, 57-67, 74- 

" Proc, 136, 28s, 554- 



Tlw Conslilutinnal Comftilion i lo 

convcntiDii. The declaration of rights as rm.niv .iM-ptcd 
omitted Article I of the constitution of 1864, which related 
to certain inalienable rights of the people, such as that of 
reform, and Article III was inserted, which declared that 
the 

"powers not (IcIcKatccI to the United States by the ConMiiii- 
tion thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, arc reserved to the 
States respectively or to the people thereof." 

Article VII gave the suffrage to every " white male citizen " 
of age, and Article XV continued the prohibition of a 
poll-tax." 

Article XXI\' substituted for the provision of 1864. which 
abolished slavery, the following: — 

" That slavery shall not be re-established in this State, but hav- 
ing been abolished, under the policy and authority of the United 
States, compensation, in consideration thereof, is due from the 
United States." 

It appears that there was some debate in the convention 
on May 28 concerning the advisability of inserting in 
the constitution this clause prohibiting slaver)-, for some 
members wished that it be omitted. However, others in- 
sisted upon its retention, in view of the eflfect on the public 
mind — abolition being an accomplished fact — and it was 
finally inserted upon this grounrl.'" 

Article XXVII copied the constitution of 1851.'' which 
provided " that no conviction .shall work corruption of blootl 
or forfeiture of estate," but omitted the clause inserted in 
1864 which contained the words " for any crime, except 
treason, and then only on conviction." Finally, the fol- 
lowing was inserted as Article XLI\': — 

" That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, 
and of this State, apply, as well in time of war, as in time of 
peace; and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof. 



"There was an ineffectual effort to strike our •' 'on the 

ground that it dealt with a matter more propci! the de- 

cision of the IcRisIaturc. and that every one ibute to 

the expenses of Rovcrnment (see the Sun. M.iy .-s, 1 >. - 1 

'• Sun. Mav Jt). 1.S67. 

".Article XXIV. 



120 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good 
Government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.'"' 

This was a direct condemnation of the war policy of Presi- 
dent Lincoln. 

As in previous constitutions, Article I dealt with the 
"elective franchise." The convention entirely omitted 
the retrospective test oaths of 1864, providing merely an 
oath of office binding a person to the support of the Consti- 
tution of the United States and the constitution and laws 
of the State of Maryland, and to the faithful discharge of 
the duties of an official. Section 5 provided for a uniform 
registration of the voters of the State, and made it con- 
clusive evidence of the right to vote.^'* 

One of the greatest improvements made in the funda- 
mental law of the State by this convention was in giving 
the veto power to the governor.^^ It was also provided 
that in order to override the opposition of the executive, 
bills must be passed by a three-fifths vote of each house 
of the General Assembly. The office of lieutenant-gover- 
nor was abolished probably on account of personal hos- 
tility to Dr. Cox and to save the State a small item of ex- 
pense. Provisions were introduced for the election of a 
governor by the General Assembly in case of a vacancy 
in that office.-^ 

A new state election was to be held in 1867 and every 
fourth year thereafter for the choice of a governor and 
other officers, but the term of Governor Swann (who 
had been elected in the fall of 1864) was to be completed 
before his successor took charge of state affairs. All the 
other state officials were legislated out of office by the 
convention.^^ The words " qualified voter " were inserted 

"Proc, 15, 20, 26, 27, 52-57, 8S-90, 97-100, 112-114, 120-121, 123- 
124, 133-134, 139-142, 143-145, 157-164, 498-501. 

"Proc, 27, Z7, 48, 151-153, 258-259, 270-272, 276-278, 289, S4CH 
550. 

■*Art. II, Sec. 17; Proc, 71, 189-190, 507-508; Sun, June 7, 1867. 

" Art. II, Sees. 6 and 7. When the General Assembly adjourned 
on March 22,, 1867, Lieut.-Gov. Cox made a speech evidently an- 
ticipating the abolition of his office if a convention were called. 

''^ See Sun, Aug. 19, 1867. There was much talk in the con- 



The Constitutioual Contcution. \2\ 

in the fifth section of the article which prcscrilKd the 
quahfications of the executive, the fear being expressed 
that otherwise a negro would he eligible.** Tlic salary 
of the governor was raised from $4000 to $4500, and 
that of the secretary of state from $1000 to $2000 — a 
very short step taken in the right direction.** 

In fixing the representation of the counties and of the city 
of Baltimore in the General Assembly, the constitution 
of 1864 made the white population the basis. The con- 
vention changed this by making the whole population the 
basis, thus materially increasing the power of the southern 
counties, the large negro population of which was thus 
" represented " although not given a vote. A sliding scale 
of apportionment of delegates was adopted, based some- 
what upon population, but by an arbitrary rule limiting the 
representation of the city of Baltimore and of the larger 
counties in the interest of the Democratic stronghold, 1. c, 
the counties in southern Maryland. -■' 

Section 11 of Article III inserted the old provision of 
the constitution of 1851 (Art. Ill, Sec. u) which had 
been omitted in 1864. It made any minister or preacher 
of the Gospel, or of any religious creed or form of belief, 
ineligible to membership in the legislature.-" Section 34 
of the same article especially permitted the General As- 
sembly to appropriate not more than $500,000 " in aid of 
the construction of works of internal improvement, in the 
counties of St. Mary's, Charles and Calvert, which have 



vcntion of .nlso turning Gov. Swann out of oflicc, m.iny of the 
" old-line " Pcniocrats evidently remembering liis .nctivily in the 
" Know-N'othiuK" and "Unconditional Union" parties in past 
years. However, a feeliuR of gratitude for his aid. particularly 
in the appointment of the registers, finally caused the matter to 
be decided in his favor. 

•Sun, June 5, 1867. . 

Troc., 27, i-;8-ij2, 169-175. 170-181, 187-190, 197-.XM. «o. S<»- 
500. 

•Art. III. Sees. 3-5. Proc., 20. 28, 78. 05. -> "^ 

601-610. It should be noted that Sec. 4 >* '•■>" '<* 

whether the represent.ition of the largest county 'he 

maximum or the minimum limit for each district of B*Utuiv>t€ City. 

•Proc., 326-328. 



122 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

had no direct advantage from such works as have been here- 
tofore aided by the State." 

Section 37 retained the provision placed in the consti 
tution in 1864 v^hich prohibited the legislature from grant- 
ing any payment for emancipated slaves, but a clause was 
added that it should " adopt such measures as [it] may 
deem expedient, to obtain from the United States com- 
pensation for such slaves, and to receive, and distribute 
the same, equitably, to the persons entitled."^^ Section 53 
settled a long controversy by making no person " incom- 
petent, as a witness, on account of race or color, unless 
hereafter so declared by Act of the General Assembly,"^® 
while Section 55 was also an aftermath of Civil War con- 
ditions, since it provided that the " General Assembly shall 
pass no Law suspending the privilege of the writ of Habeas 
Corpus." 

J. Hall Pleasants, of Baltimore City, made an attempt to 
do away with the provision of the constitution of 1864 
(Art. Ill, Sec. 50) which placed the legal rate of interest 
at six per cent, per annum, with instructions to the General 
Assembly to provide the necessary forfeitures and pen- 
alties against usury. A memorial from the Baltimore 
board of trade to the same effect was also presented by 
him on May 28. This movement was vigorously opposed 
by the county delegations, led by John F. Dent, of St. Mary's, 
and John T. Stoddert, of Charles, and as a final compro- 
mise, Section 57 provided for a six per cent, legal rate " un- 
less otherwise provided by the General Assembly."^^ 

Perhaps greater changes were made in clauses relating 
to the judiciary than in any other part of the constitution. 
The convention legislated all the judges out of office and 
did away with the independent Court of Appeals, which the 

^'Proc, 29, 353-355, 364-367, 604-605. 

*' There was a great deal of opposition in the convention to the 
idea of negroes witnessing in court. Judge Wm. M. Merrick, of 
Howard Co., most ably supported the measure and it finally pre- 
vailed. See Sun, July 24, 1867; Proc, 148-150, 153-154, 157-161, 
288, 387-388, 439, 442. 

^ Proc, 30, 34, 126-127, 220, 236-237, 241-242, 258, 296-304, 602- 
604; Sun, June 15, 1867. 



The Constitutional Con: .r.t: 



25 



delegates attackeil as "too tcchnic..:. .; })rovidcd for 

eight judicial circuits instead of thirteen, with three judges 
in place of one judge for each, and constituted the eight 
chief justices of the circuits the Court of Appeals, and 
these judges were to he elected hy the people of each circuit 
respectively, instead of hy the people of the whole State. 
The convention also required that all cases in the Court 
of Appeals should stand for hearing at the first term in- 
stead of certain special cases only, and that the clerk of 
this court should no longer he appointed but be electe<l by 
the people. Further, the Court of Appeals was directe<l 
to frame rules in e(iuity. The salaries of all the judges 
in the State except those of the Orphans' Courts were 
slightly increased. 

The arrangement of the courts in Baltimore City was 
new and rather peculiar. Six courts were provided for. 
since the five judges of the several courts were united into 
an additional court called the Supreme Bench. This last 
was given some supervisory powers without, however, re- 
stricting the right of appeal to the Court of Appeals as 
heretofore, and the several judges were from time to time to 
be assigned by the Supreme Bench to the respective courts. 
Concurrent jurisdiction in all common-law cases was given 
to each of the three common-law courts. Finally, the terms 
of office of the judges of the Orphans' Court were changed 
from four to six years, and all terms expired together, 
instead of one every two years as before." 

The extensive provisions for the advancement of edu- 
cation contained in the constitution of 18(14 (Article VIII) 

"Authority of Mr. John M. Carter, of Bahimorc. Mr. CovinRton, 
who was a member of the judiciary committee of xhc r-rvrntion, 
states that the object of the new provisions was t the 

custom of superior court judgrs poinR on circuit. do 

away with the expense of special juilgcs, which hi ^n- 

siderablc amount up to this time. 

•• Condensed from the summar>- of Mr. Edward Otis Hinkley in 
his edition of the constitution of iSr>7, published bv l-'n Nfurphy 
and Company, naltimorc. See also Proc., 20, 27. ;.VJ- 

343. 36o-.l(M. 303-306, 406-407, 400-413. 4«7. ^^t- " 

has beeti pointed out that there was a larr- • i luturc 

judicial candidates in the convention, for - -<r<. Gill, 

Rrown. Ritchie. Gary and Oobbin of the !■ y delega- 

tions later on attained that diRuity. 



124 ^^^^ Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

were done away with, and in their place the convention 
required that the General Assembly should at its first ses- 
sion " by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and 
efficient System of Free Public Schools." The system in 
force at the time was to expire, but the school fund of the 
State was to be kept inviolate and appropriated only to 
the purposes of education.^^ 

In accordance with the arrangement made by the Demo- 
cratic and Conservative forces during the sessions of the 
preceding legislature,"" Article XI provided for an entirely 
new government for the city of Baltimore, and the new 
mayor and city council were to be elected on the fourth 
Wednesday of October, 1867. No debt could be created, 
nor could the credit of the city be loaned, unless au- 
thorized by the General Assembly and approved by the 
vote of the people. This last provision was immutable, but 
any other provision of the article could be changed by the 
legislature.^* 

Article XII empowered the board of public works, with 
the authorization or ratification of the General Assembly, 
to sell the State's interest in the various works of internal 
improvement, with the exception of the interest in the 
Washington Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.^® 



** Article VIII. The system in force since 1864 was objected to 
as too expensive. Sun, June 12, 1867; Proc, 20, 27-28, 33, 139, 
220-221, 291-292, 304-305, 307-314, 625-627. With this exception 
no serious attack was made upon the white school system so suc- 
cessfully started in accordance with the provisions of the con- 
stitution of 1864 by Libertus van Bokkelen, state superintendent of 
education. The Radical leaders of the period were most earnest 
in their advocacy of education, and under their auspices was also 
opened on January 3, 1865, in Baltimore, the first public school for 
negroes, and another at Easton, Md., during the same month. 
To Evans Rodgers, Wm. J. Albert, John A. Needles, Joseph M. 
Gushing, H. Lennox Bond and Archibald Stirling, Jr., is due a 
large part of the credit for furthering this enlightened policy. 

"■■' See page 100. 

^' Several members of the Baltimore City delegation made speeches 
in the convention earnestly urging the necessity of a new govern- 
ment for the city, with the result that the report of the commit- 
tee was concurred in unanimously. See Sun, July 13, 1867; Proc, 
641-642. 

'"Proc, 390-393, 595, 633-635, 642-645, 661-662, 666-667, 669-673, 
683-703, 706-708. It is interesting to note that on May 23 Mr. Wm. 



The Constitutional i\'h, i n,-.. ,i. IJ5 

Article XIII provided for the erection of a new county 
to l)c named Wicomico, with the town of Salisbur)* as 
the county-scat, out of land taken from the counties of 
Somerset and Worcester. Tlie people within the limits 
of the proposed new division were to vote u|>on the (|uc<»- 
tion of its creation at the election to he held ujjon the 
adoption of the constitution. This matter ha<l Ik-cu mootcti 
for some years and various petitions for and af^ainst were 
presented to the Icfjislature. It appears that Salisbury lay 
partly in Somerset and partly in Worcester County, a 
street of the town forming the dividing line. It was the 
home of much comparative wealth at that time, and its 
people, urged on by pride of territory and a desire to increase 
the value of their property, were ambitious to make it the 
county-town of a new district to be known as Wicomico 
County. With this object in view, they united upon J. 
Hopkins Tarr, who was sent to the convention as a mem- 
ber of the Worcester County delegation, for the particular 
purpose of working for the plan. He was successful, as 
the convention was evidently willing to provide in this 
manner for an increase in the representati<in and intUicncc 
of southern Maryland in the legislature. The same ar- 
ticle of the constitution also provided for the future crea- 
tion or rearrangement of counties by the General Assem- 
bly, with the consent of the voters interested." 

Article XIV provided for amending the constitution in 

S. McPhcrson, of Frederick County, s; • of 

legislation to rcRiil.itc railroad froi(.:ht ;lic 

State of Maryland. Proc., 96. Hy ar tljc 

sale of the Washington Branch was authuiucJ unJ acccni^-liilicd 
in IQ06. 

"Proc. 35, 127-1^8. 157, 196-107, 232, 253-254, 287-288, 203-204. 
33»-3.^3. 35^ 3^i. 4'8-4i9. 437-4.^*<. 474. 407. 5n-5i5. .V5-53-'. 5")7- 
508, 627-629, 054-655; House Jour.. ifV>5. 2<>9. 2»X), .\<^7. 3,W. 345. 
384. 507. 544. ^77: House Jour.. iS/y>. i()5. 190. 202. 2<w. 295- 
Under the article Garrett County was erected out of Allegany 
shortly after the adoption of the constitution, but it *rrm4 phy»i- 

cally itnpossiMc to form any more new counties wit' uig 

the provision of the article that each county of ; ist 

contain at least four hundred scjunre miles. It shoul at 

the provision in the constitution of 18^14 (.\rt. '^ '••^T 

the organization of townships in the place of elef in 

the comities was omitted by the convention (see my ■ in- 

stitution of 1864, 87). 



126 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

two ways. First, the legislature might submit to the peo- 
ple any amendments, if passed by a three-fifths vote of 
each house; second, there must be submitted to the people 
in the year 1887 and every twentieth year thereafter the 
question of the call of a convention for altering the con- 
stitution. It will be noticed that nothing was said in re- 
gard to the power of the legislature to call a convention 
or submit the matter to the vote of the people at any other 
time.^'^ 

Finally, the constitution as a whole was adopted by the 
convention on August 17, by the vote of 100 to 4, the 
negative votes being cast by James L. Horsey, of Somer- 
set County, J. Montgomery Peters and Lindsay H. Rennolds, 
of Baltimore City, and John T. Stoddert, of Charles County.^^ 
The convention then adjourned, after listening to a species 
of farewell rhapsody on the part of Judge Carmichael.^^ 

A reading of the debates as reported in the daily news- 
papers of the time will show a good disposition on the 
part of the members of the convention to leave matters 
(particularly of detail) to the legislature as much as pos- 
sible. Taken as a whole, and giving due consideration to 
the chaotic times in which the Vv^ork was done, the constitu- 
tion was a strong and fairly conservative document, and 
up to the average excellence of the contemporary instru- 
ments of government in force in the other States of the 
Union. It has lasted, and has worked fairly well, up to 
the present time. 

*'Proc., 349-350, 488-489, 639-641. The people of the State were 
strongly adverse to a convention, both in 1887 and in 1907. The 
vote on Nov. 8, 1887, was, "for" a convention, 72,464, "against," 
I05>735. blank ballots, 890S (Baltimore City voted, "for," 31,373, 
"against," 31,622). St. Mary's was the only county in southern 
Maryland which was strongly opposed. At the same election the 
vote for governor was, Elihu E. Jackson of Wicomico Co. (Dem- 
ocrat), 99,038; Walter B. Brooks of Baltimore City (Republican), 
86,622. On Nov. 5, 1907, the vote of the State on the question 
was even more decided, " for " a convention, 32,778, " against," 
87,035 (Baltimore City, "for," 18,894, "against," 41.944). It has 
been remarked that the state judiciary has generally been good, 
and that this is one of the strongest reasons why the present 
constitution has lasted. 

^Proc, 710-71 1. 

^' Proc, 711-712. 



CHAPTER \T. 

Self-Reconstruction Completed — Congress Declines 
TO Interfe:re. 

The new constitution was at once published, and Septem- 
ber iS. 1867. was proclaimed by Governor Swann as the 
date for its submission to the voters of the State. The 
American of August 20 voiced the feehng of the Ra<Ii- 
cals when it attacked the constitution on the ground that it 
was not a repubhcan form of government, saying further 
that it did not give all citizens the right to vote, or make 
them equals before the law. This of course referred to 
the negroes, and did not call forth much enthusiasm among 
the Republicans, who, while they had accepted the principle 
of negro suffrage, were not anxious to accentuate the mat- 
ter any more than was necessary. 

On September 10 there was a large Democratic-Con- 
servative parade, followed by a mass-meeting in Monu- 
ment Square, which was presided over by Hon. Thomas d. 
Pratt. Resolutions were passed endorsing President John- 
son, Governor Swann ami the new constitution. Ail- 
dresses were made by the governor, by Daniel Clarke, of 
Prince George's County, and by Frederick J. Nelson, of 
Frederick County.* On the other hand the opposition of the 
Republicans could hardly be (lignific<l by the name of a 
political campaign. A " Border State Convention " which 
met in Front Street Theatre, Baltimore, on September 12, 
and was presided over by Horace Maynard of Tennessee, 
passed resolutions which urged Francis Thomas to push 
forward in Congress his policy of national investigation of 
border-state government and politics.' 

The election held on Septcmln'r iS wa«^ ic 

'Sun, Sept. II, 1867, 
•American and Sun, Sept. 13, l>^«r. 
I a? 



128 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

affair.^ The Conservative forces swept the State and the 
constitution was adopted by an overwhelming majority. 
Out of a total vote of 70,215, the number "for" the con- 
stitution was 47,152; "against," 23,036; blank ballots, 27.* 
The American of September 19 said of the election: — 

" To the apathy of the Republicans in the city and State is 
due the large majority of their opponents, who have considerably 
increased their vote since September last. . . . Our despatches 
from the counties indicate that the same course pursued by the 
Republicans here was practiced there, and the election was almost 
allowed to go by default on their part, while the opposition 
brought out all their strength.' We have appealed time and again 
to the Republicans throughout tlie State to properly organize their 
party. A want of organization, energy and united course of ac- 
tion has injured the party in the past, as in the contest of yester- 
day." 

The Democrats were of course jubilant, rightly believing 
that their cause was now won beyond any chance of future 
danger, and that the self-reconstruction of Maryland was 
complete. Said the Sun of September 24, 1867: — 

"A grand moral triumph has thus been achieved, which even 
the most reckless political iniquity will scarcely venture to con- 
front. It should silence and crush the machinations against the 
popular will and the welfare and honor of the State, which have 
so long sought to prostrate the vast majority of the Maryland 
people, and all its great interests, beneath the heel of a faction 
so inconsiderable that, with free access to the polls, and none of 
those restrictions imposed upon it which it is always seeking to 
impose upon others, it could not carry a single precinct in Balti- 
more, nor a single county in the State." 

The new constitution went into effect on October 5, 1867, 
as the convention directed, and on the twenty-third of the 
month the first election for the choice of a new city govern- 

'Sun, Sept. 19, 1867. 

*The vote of Baltimore City was, "for," 16,120; "against," 
5627; total, 21,747. Those districts of Somerset and Worcester 
counties which were to form Wicomico County voted, " for," 1281 ; 
" against," 906, giving a favorable majority of 375. A vigorous 
opposition to it had developed. 

" The Frederick "Examiner of Sept. 25, 1867, states that there 
was no organized effort against the new constitution on the part 
of the " Union men." 



Si'lf-I\i'constructioit Completed. 129 

mcnt for Baltimore was held. The Demorrats were again 
successful, K. T. Hanks heing elected mayor by the over- 
whelming vote of 1 8.4 JO in his favor to 48*/) for his Repub- 
lican opj)onent, A. W. Denison. At the state election on 
November 5 follo\vin{j. the Democratic candidate* for gov- 
ernor, Odcn Bowie, received 63,694 votes, an<l Judge H. 
Lennox liond, the Rei)ublican candidate, 22,050.^ 

The extreme radicalism of a certain clement of the Re- 
publicans, combined with the policy of advocating negro 
enfranchiseincnt, thus threw the entire government of the 
State into the hands of the Democratic party. The fif- 
teenth amendment to the Constitution of the I'nited Stales 
caused the enfranchisement of the negroes in Maryland 
after 1870. and thus added to the total Republican vote, but 
nevertheless the hold of their opponents remained still un- 
--Iiaken. Long-continued ptnver usually begets |x)litical 
iiidilTerencc on the part of the average citizen, and opens 
boundless opportunity for "ring" politics and "graft." 
The Democratic party in Maryland was no exception to this 
rule — it soon fell hopelessly into the hands of a corrupt 
political organization, the history of which, however, is not 
included in this study. 

It will be remembered that we turned our attention from 
Congress and its attitude toward Marylan<l at the |>oint 
when it had received, in March. 1867, numerous petitions 
from the defeated Republicans of that State who. under the 
leadership of Francis Thomas, were praying for " a repub- 
lican fomi of government," and were attempting to arouse 
at Washington a violent political agitation again.st the Con- 
servatives in Maryland." This movement was at once op- 
posed by the small Democratic minority in Congress as 
" dangerous constitutional dtKtrine."" In addition it was 
strongly resisted by loyal Union men such as, for example, 

•The " Conscrv.itivc " Unionists h.icl by thi<» time lo*i their 
identity .is an orR.nnizcd political party, and had linaily merged 
with the Hctnocrats. 

'The vote of Raltimore City was, Bowie, I0.0t^: Bond, 4X46. 

' See pace no. 

•Cong. r,!..i..- T^' <:,... .o»h Cong., 1867, 415-419. 

9 



130 The Self -Reconstruction of Maryland. 

Charles E. Phelps, of the third Maryland district, who had 
been a gallant officer in the Federal army during the war. 
Consequently the Republican majority failed to act, and the 
movement died down during the course of the year in spite 
of several determined efforts to revive it. 

Thus, on July 15, 1867, William H. Kelsey, of New York, 
obtained the passage of a resolution in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, instructing the judiciary committee to inquire 
and report by bill or otherwise as to whether the States of 
Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were living under gov- 
ernments republican in form.^° In November of the same 
year, James G. Blaine, of IMaine, submitted a resolution that 
the general commanding the army of the United States 
should communicate to the House, among various papers, 
" all correspondence in regard to the difficulties in Baltimore 
touching the police commissioners and other matters prior 
to the election of 1866."" 

Again, on December 17, Francis Thomas offered a reso- 
lution that the committee on the judiciary " be authorized 
to continue inquiries . . . concerning public affairs in Mary- 
land." This was carried in spite of the vigorous opposition 
of General Phelps, who stated that this move for congres- 
sional reconstruction of Alaryland was " in the interest of a 
defeated and disappointed political faction " and that " an 
investigation [had] been going on before a committee of 
this House for the last twelve months involving the integrity 
and independence of a State in full relation with the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. "^^ 

Thomas continued to present during the next two years 
various petitions from " citizens of Maryland praying for 
a republican form of government,"^^ but, although he was 
himself a member, the judiciary committee steadily refused 

"House Jour., ist Sess.. 40th Cong., 211-212, 244; Cong. Globe, ist 
Sess., 40th Cong., 1867. 656-657. 

"House Jour., ist Sess., 40th Cong., 269. 

" Cong. Globe, 2nd Sess., 40th Cong., 1867, 230-231. This investi- 
gation generally took place behind closed doors. 

"House Jour., 3rd Sess., 40th Cong. (1868-9), 18. m. 128, 149, 
156, 202, 242, 263, 312, 412. 



Self -Reconstruction Completed. 1 3 i 

to take any action, and nothing further was done by Con- 
gress. Maryland, therefore, was permitted to carry out a 
policy of self-reconstruction, with no outside interference.** 
The Radicals in the State, realizing the uselessncss of fur- 
ther agitation, accepted the situation as inevitable and 
turned their attention to more promising fields of endeavor. 
Their violent and unreasonable agitation had ended in a 
complete fiasco. 

It is perhaps easy, in the retrospect of more than forty 
years, for us to criticize and condemn this or that man, or 
this or that party. However, it is well for us also to remem- 
ber with pride that although feeling was aroused, during the 
reconstruction period following the war, to a height which 
we of this day can hardly imagine, a large majority of the 
people of Man^land showed the characteristic restraint of 
the strong American stock from which they had sprung. 
They never forgot that the comer-stone of a democratic 
government is after all the rule of law as made by the will 
of the majority. They were willing to submit when beaten, 
and turned their attention to repairing the losses caused 
by the Civil War, and to advancing the prosperity and 
future well-being of the State of Maryland. 



"House Jour. 2nd Sess.. 40th Cong.. 109; 3rd Sess.. 40th Coor.. 
431. General Ch.irlcs E. Phelps, in a recent intcr\-icw pranted the 
writer, jjave his authority for the statement that Francis Thomas 
had for years bitterly opposed the undue reprc-;entntion in the 
General .-Xs^cmbly of the Democratic counties of < •'! rn ^T.^^y- 
land. and this move for the reconstruction of the St.- -■•■<% 

chimed in with these views, hence it was a strong i* 

active advocacy of the plan. General Phelps fun! it 

the whole movement was soon stripped hare as merely (urn/an. 
and that the Republican leaders were unwillinR to assume the 
responsibility for revolutionizing a State in the interest of a poli- 
tical party. 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 

IN 

Historical and Political Science 

Under the direction of the 

Departments of History, Political Economy 
and 

Political Science 



TWENTY-SEVENTH SERIES, 1909. 



The University Studies will continue to publish. 8A heretofore, the 
reaiilta of recent investigations in History, Political Science, and Politi- 
cal Kcononiy. The new series will present topics of interest in the 
early political, social and economic history of EurojH? and the United 
States. The cost of subscription for the regular Annual Series, com- 
prising about 600 pages, with index, is $3.00 (foreign {)ostagc, 60 cents). 
Single numbers, or special monographs, at special prices. 

For Ihf ytar 1U09, the titles yivru Inlmr an- ninr ant\i>unc<d; olhcr 
nuiitbrrs irill foUoir from time to timt. 

THE SELF-RECONSTRUCTION OF MARYLAND, 1864 1867. Hy W. S. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH LAW OF CONSPIRACY. 
Ily .1. W. r.ryai. 

THE STANDARD RATE IN AMERICAN TRADE UNIONS. By U. A. 

THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. iU .1. M. .Mathews. 

THE TRADE UNION LABEL. !'.> i: K. SiHMldon. 

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND ENGLISH PUBLIC OPINION, 1789 
1801. Hy \V. T. I.jipr:i.l.-. 



THE JOHNS HOP KINS PRESS OF BALTIMORE. 

A.merican Journal of Mathematics. Fbank Moeley, Editor. Quarterly. 
4to. Volume XXXI in progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign post- 
age fifty cents.) 

American Chemical Journal. Ira Remsen, Editor. Monthly. 8vo. Vol- 
ume LXI in progress. $5 per year. (Foreign postage fifty cents.) 

American Journal of Philology. B. L. Gildebsleeve, Editor. Quarterly. 
8vo. Volume XXX in progress. $3 per volume. (Foreign post- 
age fifty cents.) 

Studies in Historical and Political Science. Monthly. 8vo. Volume XXVII 
in progress. $3 per volume. (Foreign postage fifty cents.) 

Johns Hopkins University Circular. Monthly. 8vo. $1 per year. 

Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. Montlily. 4to. Volume XX in pro- 
gress. $2 per year. (Foreign postage fifty cents.) 

Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume XV in progress. $5 per 
volume. (Foreign postage fifty cents.) 

Contributions to Assyriology and Semitic Philology. Paul Haupt and 
Friedricii Delitzsch, Editors. Volume VI in progress. 

Memoirs from the Biological Laboratory. Five volumes have been issued. 

Modern Language Notes. A. M. Elliott, Editor. Monthly. 4to. Vol- 
ume XXIV in progress. $1.50 per volume. (Foreign postage twenty- 
five cents.) 

American Journal of Insanity. Henby M. Hued, Editor. Quarterly. 
Svo. Volume LXV in progress. $5.00 per volume. 

Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity. L. A. Bauee, Editor. 
Quarterly. Svo. Volume XIV in progiess. $2.50 per volume. (For- 
eign postage twenty-five cents.) 

Reprint of Economic Tracts. J. H. Hollandeb, Editor. First series, 
$3.00. Second series, $2.00. Third series in progress, $2.00. 

Report of the Maryland Geological Survey. 

Report of the Johns Hopkins University. Presented by the President to 
the Board of Trutsees. 

Register of the Johns Hopkins University. Giving the list of officers and 
studeata, and stating the regulations, etc. 



Rowland's Photoobaph of the Noemal Solae Spectbum. Ten plates. 

$25. 
Photographic Reproduction of the Kashmieian Athabva-Veda. M. 

Bloomfield, Editor. 3 vols. Folio. $50. 
PoEMA de Febnan Gon^alez. Edited by C. Carroll Marden. 284 pp. 

$2.50 net. 
The Taill of Rauf Coilyeab. Edited by William Hand Browne. 1G4 

pp. $1 net. 
A New Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. 

Paul Haupt, Editor. Prospectus on application. 
Studies in Honor of Professor Gildersleeve. 527 pp. $6. 
The Physical Papers of Heney A. Rowland. 716 pp. $7.50. 
Baltimore Lectures on Molecular Dynamics and the Wave Theory 

OF Light. By Lord Kelvin. 716 pp. $4.50 net. 
The Oyster. By William K. Brooks. 225 pp. $1 net. 
Ecclesiastes : A New Metrical Translation. By Paul Haupt. 50 pp. 

50 cents. 
The Book of Nahum: A New Metrical Translation. By Paul Haupt. 53 

pp. 50 cents. 
Ancient Sinope. By David M. Robinson. 112 pp. $1 net. 



Communications should be addressed to The Johns Hopkins Press, 
ii 



THE 

Quarterly Journal of Kcoiioniics 

riii)lisli('(l lor Ilarvard I riivr-'it\ . 
U tv*tal>lisho<l for tho julvnncj'niont of kno\vlo<lp> \>y lhi> full nml fro«» din- 
cuadion of ocononiic questionn. Thc« cditorrt nHMiiinc no rc^Npotmihilitj for 
the viowfl of contributorH, iM-yond n fruanint*-*' tlint thoy have a grxnl clftim 
to the attention of wollinformcil renders. 

Conimunioations for the editors Hhould U» aihlrcHHcd to the (juarti-rly 
Journal of Economics, Cambridge, Masfl.; businpsn conimunirntion-t and 
subscriptions ($,1.00 a year), to Geo. II. Ellis Co.. 272 Congrejui Street, 
I'.o.ston. Mass. 



CONTENTS FOR NOVEMBER. 1908 

I. THE STATISTICAL COMPLEMENT OF PURE ECO- 
NOMICS Henry L. Moor* 

II. RAILROADS IN THEIR CORPORATE RELATIONS . Fr»nk H. DHon 

III. A STATISTICAL SURVEY OF ITALIAN EMIGRATION. R. F. Fo«rit«r 

IV. ON THE NATURE OF CAPITAL; INVESTMENT. IN- 

TANGIBLE ASSETS. AND THE PECUNIARY 

MAGNATE Thonteln V«bl«n 

V. TWO EXPERIMENTS IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF 

STEAM RAILROADS F. W. Pow«U 

REVIEWS AND SURVEYS: 

Davenport's Value and Distribution T. N. Carrer 

The Civic Federation Report on Public Ownership W. B. Munro 

NOTES AND MEMORANDA: 

Sex Ratios at Birth In Town and Country ... W. Z. Btpley 

The Australian Tariff: A Supplementary Note Victor 8. Clark 

The Cleveland Referendum on Street Railways . £. W. Bemls 



CONTENTS FOR FEBRUARY. 1909 



I. A TEAR AFTER THE PANIC OF l^OT. 
II. ON THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL VALUE 
III. PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE STATE 



A. D. VoyM 

Joseph Bchampeter 



__ _ BANKING 

LEGISLATION 
IV. THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM OF THE MEDIAEVAL 
PAPACY IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT LITERA- 
TURE 

V. THE PRESENT PERIOD OF INCOME TAX AC- 
TIVITY IN THE AMERICAN STATES .... 
REVIEWS AND SURVEYS: 

Irving Fisher on Capital and Interest .... 
Some Recent Text-booka In Economics .... 
NOTES AND MEMORANDA: 

The British Board of Trade's InTestlraUons Into 

Cost of Llvlnf W. C. HlteJiaU 

Inaccuracies in Roren' History of Prices ... I. Xb tMtt 



Pierre Jay 



W. E. Lnnt 



D. 0. Klnsmaa 



A. W. riua 
C. McCrM 



THE AMERICAN POLITICAL 
SCIENCE ASSOCIATION 

ESTABLISHED 1903 

James Bryce, Washington, D. C , ^SrtCUti'at Ccunci'I J 

President 

President, Vice-Presidents, 
Albert Bushnell Hart. Harvard Univ., Secretary and Treasurer, ex-opficio 

riRST Vice-President c-r.rm^^.. i ^. ^ .. « 

Stephen Leacock, McGill University 
H. A. Garfield, Princeton University. *; Lawrence Lowell^ Harvard Univ. 

Second Vice-President ^'-^^''t Shaw, New York City 
SECOND vice president jheodore Woolsey. Yale University 
Paul S. Reinsch, Univ. of Wisconsin. James T- Young, University of Penn. 

Third Vice-President J. W. jenks, Cornell University 

J. H. Latane, Washington & Lee Univ. 
W. W. Willoughby, Johns Hopkins C. E. Merriam. University of Chicago 

University, Baltimore, Md., F. J. Goodnow, Columbia University 
Secretary and Treasurer Isidor Loeb, University of Missouri 

AIM 

The advancement of the scientific study of Politics, Public Law, 
Administration and Diplomacy in the United States. 

MEMBERSHIP 

Any person may become a member upon payment of $3.00 annual 
dues. Life membership $50. Libraries eligible to annual member- 
ship. Members entitled to all publications of the Association issued 
during membership. 

PUBLICATIONS 



Proceedings 



An annual cloth bound volume, containing papers read at the annual 
December meetings of the Association. 

The American Political Science Review 

Published Quarterly. Each number containing: 

1. Leading articles. 

2. Notes on Current Legislation. 

3. " Notes and News," National, State, Municipal, Colonial, Foreign, 

Personal, and Miscellaneous. 

4. Reviews. 

5. Index to Political Publications, Books, Periodical Articles, and 

Government Publications. 
Each number contains approximately 176 pages. The first number 
issued November, 1906. Annual subscription price to persons not mem- 
bers of the Association, $3.00. Members desiring to complete their sets 
of publications of the Association may obtain volumes I, II, and III 
of the Proceedings for one dollar each, and back numbers of the Review 
for seventy-five cents each. Specimen copy of the Review sent upon 
request. 



ADDRESS ALL REMITTANCES AND COMMUNICATIONS TO 
Secretary of the W. W. WILLOUGHBY 

American Political Science Association Johns Hopkins University 
and Managing Editor of the Review Baltimore, MD. 



STUDIES IN HISTORY. ECONOMICS 
AND PUBLIC LAW 

EDITED BY 

THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 



&ECENT NUMBERS. 

VOLUME XXVIII. 1907. 664 pp. Price. |3M. 
I. DeWltt CliDton and the Origin of the Bpoili Syttem In New Tork. 

Hy IloWAiu. I.Ki: M* lUi.N. I'li.U. Price. $1.60. 

t. The Development of the LeffliUtora of Colonl&l Vlrfinl*. 

By E. I. MiCLKB. IMi.D. Price. 11.50. 
3. The Dlitrlbutlon of Ownership. 

Hy Jo.SKIM! II.MiniNO rSDERWOOD. Pii.D. Pflc*. 11.50. 
VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 703 pp. Price, H-OO. 
1. Early New England Towna. Hy .V.n.nk IU sii MacI.kak. I'h.I). Prtc*. 11.50. 

t. New Hampahlre as a Royal Province. Hy \\ illiau H. Ikv. I'h.U. Price. f3.U0. 

VOLUME XXX, 1908. 712 pp. Price. M-OO. 
The Province of New Jeriey, 1664-1738. Hy Kdwin P. Tanner. Ph.D. 

VOLUME XXXI, 1908. 675 pp. Price, |S.60. 
1. Private Freight Cars and American Railroads. 

Hy I.. I). 11. Wei.i.. PhD. Price. 11.50. 
t. Ohio before 1850. Uy KiHiKUT K. ("mamnk k. Ph.D. Price. 11.50. 

3. Consanguineous Marriages In the American Population. 

ny (lEiiHciK H. I.ni i.s Akneh, ITi.D. Price. 75 c*nt«. 

4. Adolphe Quetclet as Statistician. My Kuvsk H. IIankin.s. Ph.D. I'ric*. 11 Hi. 

VOLUME XXXII, 1908. 705 pp. Price, 94.00. 
The Enforcement of the Statutes of Laborers. 

Ity nr.KTHA llANXN PCTSAM. PlI.D. 

VOLUME XXXIU, 1908 1909. 
1. Factory Legislation In Maine. Hy K. Stau.; Wiiitin. .\ U Price, 11.00. 

VOLUME rV, No. 2, 1908. 
•The Inheritance Tax. (OmplottMy rcvlm-il .ind onlnrKod. 

Hy .Max West. Ph.D. Price, 12.00. 



The price for each volume is for tho set of monographs in paper. Each volume, aa 
well as the separate monographs marked *. can be supplied in cloth-bound copies 
for fifty cents additional. All prices are net. 

The set of thirty-two volumes, comprising eighty-five monographs (except 
that Vol. II can be supplied only in unbound Nos. 2 and S) la offered 
bound for $106. Volumes I. Ill and IV can now be sup- 
plied only in connection with complete seta. 



For further Informntlon npply t» 

Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN. Columbia University. 

or to MESSRS. LON'OMANS. OREEN * CO.. New Tork. 
London: P. S. KING ft BON, Orchard House. Westminster. 



SFI.ECT10NS AND DOCUMENTS IN 
ECONOMICS 

Edited by 

PROFESSOR WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY 

Harvard University. 
\n Application of the Case- System to the Teaching of Economics 



SELECTED READINGS IN ECONOMICS 

By CHARLES J. BULLOCK^Assistant Professor of Economics in Harvard University 
This latest book of the series furnishes the collateral reading needed 

to supplement text-book and lectures in a general course in economics. 
The large amount of descriptive and historical material includes 

various selections from standard authors and modern periodical literature 

bearing upon important j^oints of economic theory. 

The Accumulation of Capital: Saving and Spending 
The Division of Labor 
The Law of Population. 
Human Wants and their Satisfaction 
The Manufacturing Industries of the United States 
Studies of the Iron and Cotton Industries 
American Agriculture 
The Organization of Exchange Prices 
The Growth of Cities in the United States 

The Organization of Production before and after the Industrial 
Revolution 

are chapter titles that indicate the importance and interest of the subjects 
treated. 



OTHER BOOKS OF THE SERIES 

RAILWAY PROBLEMS. A collection of reprints, with maps and intro- 
duction, by William Z. Ripley. 

TRUSTS, POOLS AND CORPORATIONS. With an introduction by 
William Z. Ripley, Professor of Economics, Harvard University. 

SELECTED READINGS IN PUBLIC FINANCE. By Charles J. Bullock, 
Assistant Professor of Economics in Harvard University. 

TRADE UNIONISM AND LABOR PROBLEMS. Edited, with an intro- 
duction, by John R. Commons, Professor of Political Economy, Uni- 
versity of Wisconsin. 

SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROGRESS. A handbook for students of 
sociology, by Thomas Nixon Carver, Professor of Political Economy 
in Harvard University. 



GINN & COMPANY, Publishers 

BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO LONDON 



THE YALE REVIEW 

A QUARTERLY JOURNAL 

FOR THE DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC. POLITICAL. AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS 

The Yale Review is the successor of the New Englander and 
Yale Review, founded in 1843. In 1802 its title was modified 
and its field sj)ecialized. It now confines itself to economics, 
politics, and the social sciences, giving particular attention to 
the scientific discussion of practical economic and social prob- 
lems, and to the legislative and voluntary efforts made to solve 
them. Among its contributors outside of the editorial Ijoard, 
are Henry C. Adams, E. Benj. Andrews, I3dward Atkinson, 
Simeon E. Baldwin, John Bascom, John Graham Brooks, T. N. 
Carver, J. B. Clark, Richard T. Ely, Worthinpton C. Ford, E. R. 
L. Gould, J. H. Hollander, Bra}'ton Ives, J. Laurence Laughlin, 
Henry C. Lea, Emilc Lcvasscur, Bernard Moses, H. T. Xewcomb, 
Simon X. Patten, William Z. Ripley, L. S. Rowe, E. R. A. Selig- 
man, Werner Sombart, H. Morse Stephens, F. J. Stimson, William 
Graham Sumner, F. W. Taussig, Hannis Taylor, F. A. Walker. 
Edward B. Wliitncy, David Willcox, T. S. Woolsey, Carroll D. 
Wright, Clinton Rogers Woodruff. It is edited by the following 
[irofessors in the Departments of Political Science and Ilistori-. of 
Yale University: Henry W. Farnam, E. G. Bourne, John C. 
ScinvAB. Irvixq Fisiikr, G. S. Cvllender, Henry C. Emery, 
Ci.TVi: Day. and .\. G. Keller. 



PUBLISHED QUAF^TERLY 
On the Kth of Februar\', May, August and Novcmb<T. by 

The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Conipan\- 

NEW HAVEN, CONN. 
SrnSCRIPTION PRICE. • - ■ fvoAYKAR 



vll 



Annual Series of Studies in History and Politics, 1883-1908 

SERIES I.— LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pp. $4.00 

SERIES II.— INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pp. $4.00. 

SERIES III.— MARYLAND, VIRGINIA AND WASHINGTON. 595 pp. $4.00. 

SERIES IV.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, AND LAND TENURE. 600 pp. 
$3.50. 

SERIES v.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 559 pp. 
^3.50. 

SERIES VI.— THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 
540 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES VII.— SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
{Not sold separately.) 

SERIES VIII.— HISTORY, POLITICS. AND EDUCATION. (Not sold sepa- 
rately.) 

SERIES IX.— EDUCATION, POLITICS, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. (Not sold 
separately.) 

SERIES X.— CHURCH AND STATE, COLUMBUS AND AMERICA. 630 pp. 
$3.50. 

SERIES XI.— LABOR, SLAVERY, AND SELF-GOVERNMENT. 574 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XII.— INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY. 626 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XIII.— SOUTH CAROLINA, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. 606 pp. 
$3.50. 

SERIES XIV.— BALTIMORE, SLAVERY, AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. 
588 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XV.— AMERICAN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 618 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XVI.— ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS AND SOUTHERN HISTORY. 
624 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XVII.— ECONOMIC HISTORY: MARYLAND AND THE SOUTH. 600 
pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XVIII.— TAXATION IN SOUTHERN STATES; CHURCH AND EDU- 
CATION. 582 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XIX.— DIPLOMATIC AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. 650 pp. 
$3.50. 

SERIES XX.— COLONIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY. 622 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XXI.— INDIANA, NORTH CAROLINA AND MARYLAND. 580 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XXII.— SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL HISTORY. 651 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XXIII.— COLONIES, REVOLUTION, RECONSTRUCTION. 700 pp. 
$3.50. 

SERIES XXIV.— DIPLOMATIC HISTORY: TRADE UNIONS. 831 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XXV.— INTERNATIONAL AND COLONIAL HISTORY. 604 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES XXVI.— ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL HISTORY. 624 pp. $3.50. 

The set of twenty-sis series of Studies is now ofCered, uniformly bound in 
cloth, for library use, for $85.00 net. 

All business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hopkins Press, 
Baltimore, Maryland. 

Ameeican Agents. 
New York.— G. V. Putnam's Sons. "Washington.- W. H. Lowdermilk & Co. 

Boston.— W. B. Clarke Co. Chicago.— A. C. McClurg & Co. 

EuEOPEAN Agents. 
Paris. — A. Hermann ; Em. Terquem. London. — Kegan Paul, Trench, Trfibner & Co. ; 
Berlin. — Mayer & Miiller. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 

Leipzig. — F. A. Brockhaus. Turin, Florence and Rome. — E. Loescher & Co. 



Notes Supplementary to the Studies in History and Politics 

PRICE OF THESE NOTES, TEN CENTS BACH. 

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND. By Dr. Albert Shaw. 

SOCIAL WORK IN AUSTRALIA AND LONDON. By William Geet. 

ENCOURAGEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION. Bv Prof. H. B. Adams. 

THE PROBLEM OF CITY GOVERNMENT. Bv Hon. Sbth Low. 

THE LIBRARIES OF BALTIMORE. Bv Dr. P. R. TTiiler. 

WORK AMONG THE WORKINGWOMEN OF BALTIMORE. By Prof. H. B. 
Adams. 

CHARITIES: THE RELATION OF THE STATE, THE CITY, AND THE INDI- 
VIDUAL TO MODERN PHILANTHROPIC WORK. By Dr. A. G. Warner. 

LAW AND HISTORY. Bv Dr. Walter B. Scaife. 

THE NEEDS OF SELF-SUPPORTING WOMEN. By Miss Claeb db Gbaffbnreid. 

EARLY PRESBYTERIANISM IN MARYLAND. Bv Rev. J. W. McIlvain. 

THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECT OF THE U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. By Pro- 
fessor O. T. Maso.v. 

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTURE. By 
Richard G. Moulton. 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION. Bv Dr. William T. Harris. 

POPULAR ELECTION OF U. S. SENATORS. Bv .John Haynes. 

A MEMORIAL OF LUCIUS S. MERRIAM. Bv .T. H. Hollander and others. 

IS HISTORY PAST POLITICS? By Professor Herbert B. Adams. 

LAY SERMONS. By Amos G. Warnee ; with a biographical sketch by Gboegh 
E. Howard. Price twenty-five cents. 

viii 



Extra Volumes of Studies 

IN 

Historical and Political Science 

Philadelphia, 1681-1887. By Euwabo P. ^Vixiso.n, A.M.. an.l Iloita I*e^- 

KosK, A.H. 414 pn^cx. 8vo. Cloth. $.3.00. 
Local Constitutional History of the United States. By OroRr.E E. IIowAun, 

Pii.l). Nolunu' I— IVvrlopiiH'iit of the Townnhip, IIumlrM and Shire. 

542 paps. Svo. Cloth. $.1.00. Volume II— In preparation. 
The Negro in Maryland. By Jekfbet R. BBACK>rrT, Phi). 270 pages. 

Kvo. Cloth. .*2.00. 
The Supreme Court of the United States. By \V. W. Wii.mi oudy, Ph.D. 

I'Jt paps. Svo. Goth. $1.2.'). 
The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan. By I.nazo (Ota) Nitobe, 

Ph.D. lOS {.ap's. 8vo. Cloth. $1.2.-.. 
Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. By Fb.v.vk W. Black mar, Ph.D. 

3S0 pap-s. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 
An Introduction to the Study of the Constitution. By Morbi.s M. Cony. 

2.10 paps. Svo. Cloth. $l.r)0. 
The Old English Manor. By C. M. Andrew.s, Ph.D. 280 pages. Svo. 

Cloth. JL-IO. 
The Southern Quakers and Slavery. By SiKniKN B. Wf.f.k.s. Ph.D. 414 

pap'S. Svo. Cloth. 62.00. 
Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution. By C. D 

U\7.y.s, Ph.D. .12.-) pa^os. Svo. Cloth. .?2.00. 
Industrial E-xperiments in the British Colonies of North AjnericA. By 

Elea.nob L. Ix)RD. 104 pa^^es. Svo. Cloth. $1.25. 
State Aid to Higher Education: A Series of Addresses at the Johns 

Hopkins University. 100 pages. Svo. Cloth. $1.00. 
Financial History of Baltimore. By J. II. Hollander, Ph.D. 400 pages. 

Svo. Cloth. $2.00. 
Cuba and International Relations. By .T. ^f. Callahan. 503 pages. 8vo. 

Cloth. $.1.00. 
The American Workman. By E. Ll:^•AS^E^B (translation). 540 pagra. 

8vo. Cloth. .$.1.00. 
Herbert B. Adams. A Memorial Volume. 2.12 pages. Svo. Cloth. 
A History of Slavery in Virginia. By J. C. Ballaoii. IflO page!*. Rvo. 

Cloth. $1..10. 
The Finances and Administration of Providence, 1636-1901. By IIowa«d 

K. Stokk.s. 474 pop'fl. Svo. Cloth. $.1.50. 
The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. By IIoraii; K. KiacK. 

280 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 



Finances and Administration of 
Providence 

By HOWAED K. STOKES 
464 pages. 8to. Cloth. Price, $3.50. 

Cuba and International Relations 

By JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN, Ph.D. 
503 pages, octavo. $3.00 

The Neutrality of the American Lakes 
and Anglo-American Relations 

By JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN 
200 pages, octavo. $1.50 

American Diplomacy under Tyler 
and Polk 

By JESSE S. REEVES, Ph.D. 
335 pages. Cloth. Price, $1.50 

This volume discusses the Northeastern Boundary Controversy; the 
Ashburton Treaty; the Relations between Mexico and the United States. 
1825-1843; the Annexation of Texas; the Northwestern Boundary Contro- 
versy; the Oregon Treaty; Polk's attempted Negotiation for California; 
the Outbreak of the Mexican War; the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 

International Law and Diplomacy of the 
Spanish-American War 

By ELBERT J. BENTON, Ph.D. 

300 pages. Cloth. Price, $1.50 

Among the topics discussed are: Cuba and National Policy; American 
Neutrality, 1895-1897; Abandonment of Non-intervention Policy; Inter- 
vention; Transition from Neutrality to Belligerency; Relations of the 
Belligerents; Relations between Belligerents and Neutrals; Negotiations 
of Belligerents during War; Restoration of Peace; Interpretation and 
Fulfilment of Treaty of Peace. 

Orders should be addressed to 

The Johns Hopkins Pkess, Baltimore, Maryland. 

z 



TiiK ami:rican workman 

11 V 

PROFESSOR H. LHVASSEUR 

AN AMERICAN TliANSLATlON IlY THOMAS S. ADAMS 

>:mt>:i> iiY 

TIIEODOKK MAKHri:<; 

5-40 pas:e5, octavo. Price $3.00. 

This is a spicially nutliorizrd uikI currfully prrjuintl trniiMlation of the 
celebrated work of M. Levaascur on the American Workman. 

Among the topics treated arc The Progress of American Industry in 
the last Fifty Years; The Productivity of Labor and Machinery; Ijihar 
I^iws and Trade Regulations; Organizations of Ijibor; The Strike; Wajjea 
i)f Men; Wages of Women and Children; Factors D«'termining Numinal 
Wages; Ileal Wages and Workmen's Budgets; I*re«ent Conditions and 
Future Prospects of the American Workman. 



THE ADOPTION OF THE 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 

By HORACE EDGAR FLACK. I'li.D. 

286 pages, 8vo. Cloth, price $a.oo. 

This work will be of great interest both to tlic historian ami to the 
constitutional lawyer. To the historian it olTers the most cumplelo aceount 
as yet prepared of the circunisUimes leading up to this most ini|><)rtAnt 
political event. To tlie constitutional lawyer it presents an analy»«is of the 
objects sought to \>c accomplished by those who frametl and rntitiiHl the 
Amen«lment, and thus furnishes a means for determining in how far these 
objects have b^-^-n recognized and given effect to by the t-ourts. 

The study Iwgins with an account of the c«>nj:re»sional legiilation pre- 
ceding the Amendment, esjMX-inlly of the Frjvdmen's Utin-iii nr.\ <'jv«l 
Rights Acts. Tne history of the .Amendment N>fore ('<• 
people, and Wfore the States, is tlien considenii in ^ ; 
and the work c<impleted with an examination of the conrr 
tation of the Amendment as shown in the legi<«lation enact.. 1 iti jurMniit? 
of tlie authority conceived to have been derived from its provision*. 

Orders should lie addressed to 

The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. 



1909 



A REPRINT OF 

ECONO MIC T RACTS 

The Johns Hopkins Press invites subscriptions to a reprint of four 
important economic essays of the eighteenth century, to be issued consecu- 
tively under the editorial direction of Professor Hollander:— 
The Querist, containing several queries, proposed to the consideration of 
the public. Parts I, II, III. By George Berkeley. Dublin, 1735-37. 
An Essay on the Governing Causes of the Natural Rate of Interest; 
wherein the sentiments of Sir William Petty and Mr. Locke, on that 
head, are considered. By Joseph Massie. London, 1750. 
Money answers all Things: or an essay to make money sufficiently plenti- 
ful amongst all ranks of people, and increase our foreign and do- 
domestick trade. By Jacob Vanderlint. London, 1734. 
An Essay on Ways and Means for raising Money for the support of the 
present war, without increasing the public debts. By Francis Fau- 
quier. London, 1756. 
Each tract will be supplied by the editor with a brief introduction and 
with text annotations where indispensable. The general appearance of 
the title-page will be preserved, and the original pagination will be 
indicated. 

The edition will be limited to five hundred copies. With a view to 
serving the largest student usefulness, the subscription for the entire 
series of four tracts has been fixed at the net price of Two Dollars. 

Of the tracts heretofore reprinted, a limited number can yet be 
obtained, as follows. As the editions approach exhaustion, the prices 
indicated are likely to be increased without notice: — 
Asgill, " Several Assertions Proved." London, 1G96. Price, 50 cents. 
Barbon, " A Discourse of Trade." London, 1690. Price, 50 cents. 
Fortrey, " England's Interest Considered." Cambridge, 1663. Price, 50 cts. 
Longe, "A Refutation of the Wage-Fund Theory." London, 1866. Price, 

75 cents. 
Malthus, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent." London, 

1815. Price, 75 cents. 
North, " Discourses upon Trade." London, 1691. Price, 50 cents. 
Ricardo, " Three Letters on ' The Price of Gold.' " London, 1809. Price, 

75 cents. 
West, " Essay on the Application of Capital to Land." London, 1815. 
Price, 75 cents. 



Subscriptions and orders should be sent to 

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 

BALTIMORE, MD. 



Rlhs XXVIl NOS. 12 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 

IN 

Historical and Political Scihnch 

Under the Direction ol the 

Departments of History, Political Economy, anJ 
Political Science 



THE SELF-RECONSTRUCTION OF 
MARYLAND, 1864-1867 



BY 

WILLIAM STARR MYERS, PH.D. 

Preceptor in Histor>-. Princeton in v.-rsitv. 



BALTIMORE 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRFSS 

M;«t.i«HCO MOMTMCV 

J*nuar>-Febman . i*>> 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
IN 

Historical and Political Science 

Edited by HERBERT B. ADAMS, 1882-1901 

FIRST SERIES.— Local Institutions.— $4.00. 

I. An Introduction to American Institutional History. By E, A. Fbebman. 25 cents. 

II. Tlie Germanic Origin of New England Towns. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 

III. Local Government in Illinois. By Albekt Shaw. — Local Government in Pennsyl- 
vania. By E. R. L. Gould. 30 cents. 

IV. Saxon Tithingmen in America. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 

V. Local Government in Michigan and the Northwest. By E. W. Bemis. 25 cents. 

VI. Parish Institutions of Maryland, By Edwakd Ingle. 40 cents. 

VII. Old Maryland Manors. By John Hemsley Johnson. 30 cents. 

VIII. Norman Constables in America. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 

IX-X. Village Communities of Cape Ann and Salem. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 

XI. The Genesis of a New England State. By A. Johnston. 30 cents. 

XII, Local Government and Schools in South Carolina. By B. J. Bamage. 

SECOND SERIES.— Institutions and Economies.— $4.00. 
l-II. Methods of Historical Study. By H. B. Adams. 

III. The Past and Present of Political Economy. By R. T. Ely. 35 cents. 

IV. Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town Meeting. By James K. Hosmer. 35 cents. 
V-VI. Taxation in the United States. By Henry Carter Adams. 50 cents. 

Vn. Institutional Beginnings in a Western State. By Jesse Macy. 25 cents. 
VIII-IX. Indian Money in New England, etc. By William B. Webden. 50 cents. 

X. Town and County Government in the Colonies. By E. Channing. 

XI. Rudimentary Society among Boys. By J. Hemsley Johnson. 

XII. Land Laws of Mining Districts. By C. H. Shinn. 50 cents. 

THIRD SERIES.— Maryland, Virginia and Washington.— $4.00. 
I. Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the U. S. By H. B. Adams. 75 cents. 
II-III. Virginia Local Institutions. By E. Ingle. 
IV. Recent American Socialism. By Richard T. Ely. 50 cents. 
V-VI-VII. Maryland Local Institutions. By Lewis W. Wii.helm. $1.00. 
VIII. Influence of the Proprietors in Founding New Jersey. By A. Scott. 25 cents. 
IX-X. American Constitutions. By Horace Davis. 
XI-XII. The City of Washington. By J. A. Porter. 

FOURTH SERIES.— Municipal Government and Land Tenure.— $3.50. 
I. Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson River. By I. Elting. 
II-III. Town Government in Rhode Island. By W. E. Foster.^— The Narragansott Plant- 
ers. By Edward Channing. 

IV. Pennsylvania Boroughs. By William P. Holcomb. 

V. Introduction to Constitutional History cf the States. By J. F. Jameson. 50 cei.:- 

VI. The Puritan Colony at Annapolis, Maryland. Bv D. R. Randall. 
VII-VIII-IX. The Land Question in the United States. By S. Sato. $1.00. 

X. Town and City Government of New Haven. By C. H. Levermoee. 50 cents. 
XI-XII. Land System of the New England Colonies. By M. Egleston. 50 cents. 
FIFTH SERIES.— Municipal Government, History and Politics.— $3.50. 
I-II. City Government of Philadelphia. By E. P. Allinson and B. Penrose. 50 cents. 

III. City Government of Boston. By James M. Bugbeb. 25 cents. 

IV. City Government of St. Louis. By Marshall S. Snow. 

V-VI. Local Government in Canada. By John Geoege Bourinot. 50 cents. 

VII. Effect of the War of 1812 upon the American Union. By N. M. Butler. 25 cents. 

VIII. Notes on the Literature of Charities. By Heebert B. Adams. 25 cents. 

IX. Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. By James Beyce. 25 cents. 

X. The Study of History in England and Scotland. By P. Feedehicq. 25 cents. 

XI. Seminary Libraries and University Extension. By H. B. Adams. 25 cents. 

XII. European Schools of History and Politics. By A. D. White. 25 cents. 
SIXTH SERIES.— The History of Co-operation in the United States.— $3.50. 

SEVENTH SERIES.— Social Science, Education, Government. 

I. Arnold Toynbee. By F. C. Montagtte. 50 cents. 

II-III. Municipal Government in San Francisco. By Bernard Moses. 50 cents. 

IV. The City Government of New Orleans. By Wm. W. Howe. 25 cents. 

V-VI. English Culture in Virginia. By William P. Trent. 

VII-VIII-IX. The River Towns of Connecticut. By Charles M. Andrews. $1.00. 

X-XI-XII. Federal Government in Canada. By John G. Bourinot. 

EIGHTH SERIES.— History, Politics and Education. 
I-II. The Beginnings of American Nationality. By A. W. Small. $1.00. 
ni. Local Government in Wisconsin. By D. B. Spencer. 25 cents. 
rv. Spanish Colonization in the Southwest. By F. W. Blackmar. 
V-VI. The Study of History in Germany and France. By P. Fredeeicq. $1.00. 
VII-IX. Progress of the Colored People of Maryland. By J. R. Beackett. $1.00. 
X. The Study of History in Belgium and Holland. By P. Febdericq. 
XI-XII. Seminary Notes on Historical Literature. By H. B. Adams and others. 50 cents. 



NINTH SERIES.— Education, Hiatory, Politic*, SocUl Science. 

I II. OoTernment of the United Stats*. Ily W \V. Wii.ux •.iiiiT ■od W V Wiu <.i ..hut 
III IV. Uulveralty Kdui&tlon In XaryUnd. Ity II r. Siki.skii. Tb* JehM XerUas 
Unlveriity (1876 1891). My I» »'. (in. man. .',ii ,,ijIt. 

V VI. Munlrinal Unltr III the Lombard Communei. Itv \\ . K Wilmamm 

VII VIII. Public Lanil* of tho Boman Bepabllc. Ilv -\ SixnitMio?*. 75 cMtta. 

IX. Conitltutlonal Development of Japan. Ily 'I' Iw.na';a. r<<i c«nu 

X. A History of Liberia. Ity J. II. -f. M.Thkk ...s .-... crnta. 

XI XII. The Indian Trade in Wiicoailn. Ily K. J. Ti i:>>:il 50 c«Dla. 

TENTH SERIES.— Church and State: Columbus and America.— 43.50. 

I. The Bishop Hill Colony. IlyMi.iM>T ,\ >!!KK»:ijt»N &<• c.-nta. 
II-III. Chiiron and Stite In Now EncU- ' '• ■■ ■• i K. I.a( ka. 
IV. Church and State in Maryland. ISt i; 

V VI. Religious D»velopm< lit In the Ir ih Carolina. By « B. Wkxks. 

VII. Marylindt Attitude in the Struc,: .». Hy J \V. Ilua. k OO ciDt*. 

VIII IX. The Quakers In PpnngyWant.v. i., .\ i ,\iii •;.;.» ktii. 7.'» cntu 

X XI. Columbus and his Dlfcovery of America. Ily II. M. Aimmh and It W>>>t> f." cro** 
XII. Causes of the Amorlran KeTOlutlon. Ity J. A. Wimimu hn. •>) rnu 1 

ELEVENTH SERIES.— Labor, Slavery, and Self-Government.— Ij.so. 

I. The Social Condition of Labor. Ity K It I. lix ii>. .'•<> rrnts. 

II. The Worlds ReprosentallTe Asaemblies of T" Dir. liv K K .Virr-; no cr^LM. 
Ill IV. The Negro in the District of Columb!.i ' • 

V VI. Church and SUte in North Carolina. 1 '• 

VII VIII. The Condition of the Western Tut '. 00. 

IX X. Hl!<tory of Slavery in Conaecticut. It^ ; 

XI XII. Local Oovernmunt in the South. H> i: U Kkmi. ai. 1 ■ t: .ri $ : •■". 

TWELFTH SERIES.— Institutional and Economic History.— #3.50. 

I II. The Cincinnati Southern Railway. IW J. 11. II' iHM.rn |1 '•■' 

III. Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina. Ilv .1 S llv.sMrT r. ' ■ -nta. 

IV. Struggle of Dissenters for Toleration in Virginia. Itv II K M' I; .« vim: BO cnita. 
V-VI VII. The Carolina Piratet and Colonial Commerce. Ilv .>< r lit .!.s.-. IJ.Ow. 

VIII IX. Representation and Suffrage in MassachusetU. Ily ti II. lU^'O'i. GO ctOla. 
X. English Institutions and the American Indian. lU .1 A. JxMr.H. 'J-'i rrn«« 

XI XII. International Beglnniaga of the Congo Free SUta. Ity J. H. Iti:i:\i:a. BO ecata. 

THIRTEENTH SERIES.— South Carolina, Maryland, V 
I II. Government of the Colony of South Carolina. Ily i: I. \\ 

III IV. Early Relations of Maryland and Virginia. Ily .1 II 

V. The Rise of the Bicameral System In America. Ily 1. 1". M 

VI VII. White Servitude In the Colony of Vlrclnla. Hy J. C IIai i.auh. :. • vii-'.^. 

VIII. The Genesis of California's First Conntituiljn. Ity K I>. Mint. 60 c«Dla 

IX. Benjamin Franklin as an Economist. Hy W A. WFT7.ri. .'.<• rrnta. 

X. The Provisional Government of Maryland. Ilv .1 A. Sii,\rR .'.O crnfa 

XI XII. Government and Religion of the Virginia Indians. Ily .«». U. Ilr.Mrt^. 50 crota 

FOURTEENTH SERIES.— Baltimore, Slavery, Constitutional History.— <j.5o. 

I. Constitutional History of Hawaii. Ity IIenbt K. riiAMiii;R«. -'.'• r< : 

II. City Government of Baltimore. Iljr TiiiPi.rt s 1'. Tii'>mas. ■.'.•. 

III. Colonial Origins of Now England Senates. Ity F. I, U'.r: T'' 

IV V. Servitude in tho Colony of North Carolina. I'.v .t - 

VI VII. RepresenUtion in Virginia. Ily J A ' t , n •. 

VIII. History of Taxation in Connecticut (1630 177tii. .•■.■■> 

IX X. A Study of Slavery in New Jersey. It.v IIim.y S ^ 

XI XII. Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689. Ily I' I --1 ui;s ..' r.-nts 

FIFTEENTH SERIES.— American Economic History.— fj-S©- 

I II. The Tobacco Industry in VIrrlBia since 1880. Itv II W Ai!n.>im^ T' •••• 

III V. Street Railway System of Philadelphia. Ily I- . \N . Mi n .■• 

VI. Daniel Raymond. Hv <'. 1' Nnn.i.. .M' <.-i.i« 

VII VIII. Economic History of B. ft 0. R. R. Hy M lit •' 

IX. The South American Trade of Baltimore. Rv IV K I; 

X XI. State Tax Commissions In the Ualted States. I'v • • 
XII. Tendencies in American Economio Thought. Ity H > 

SIXTEENTH SERIES.— Anglo-American Relations and Soulhcin HLtory.— ^350. 
I IV. The NeutralitT of the American Lakes, etc Ily J. M. i*i.i.aii*>. II 25 

V. West Flori-la. i- " ' i-ii*»<it«ns '.J.', .-.•ni . 

VI. Anti-Slaverv T • rth Carolina. I'.v 1 
VIT IX. Life an ' i "' Sir Robert Y ' 
X XI. Tho Trsn '. C«rolh>a fr. m a 
XII. Jared Sparks a;. 1 Ai-i,, Ue ToetnevlHe. ll> li •• 

SEVENTEENTH SERIES —Economic HUtory; Maryland and the Soutk— Ij-SO- 

1 II III. HUtnrv of SUte Banking in Maryland, lu A r H 1 ■• > > •'""'.., 

IV V. Tho Kri.v.". Nothing Party in Maryland. H- : •"•■ 
VI. The La'iAHrt Colony In MarrUn*. My H P. 

▼ II VIII. Hi.tr^ry of Slavery in Hortk Carolina, i ,. 

IX X XI. Development of the CTiawipaake ft Ohio o. — - ••' • " -. • 
XII. Public Educational Work ia laltlBora. By HkitwfcM U. AMifft. *^ «» ■ 



J 



EIGHTEENTH SERIES.— Taxation; Church and Popular Education.— $3.50. 

I-IV. studies in State Taxation, Edited by J. H. Hollander. Paper, $1.00 ; cloth, $1.25 
V-VI. The Colonial Executive Prior to the Restoration. By P. L. Kayb. 50 cents. 
V.II. Constitution and Admission of Iowa into the Union. By J. A. Jamks. 30 cents. 
VIII-IX. The Church and Popular Education. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 
X XII. Religious Freedom in Virginia: The Baptists. By W. T. Thom. 75 cents. 

NINETEENTH SERIES.— Diplomatic and Constitutional History.— $3.50. 
I III. America in the Pacific and the Far East. By J. M. Callahan. 75 cents. 
IV V, State Activities in Relation to Labor. By W. F. Willoughbx. 50 cents. 
VI-VII. History of Suffrage in Virginia. By J. A. C. Chandler. 50 cents. 
Vill-IX. The Maryland Constitution of 1864. By W. S. Myees. 50 cents. 
X. Life of Commissary James Blair. By D. E. Motley. 25 cents. 
XI-XII. Gov. Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. By G. L. Radcliffe. 50 cents. 

TWENTIETH SERIES.— Colonial and Economic History.— $3.50. 

I. Western Maryland in the Revolution. By B. C. Stbinbe. 30 cents. 

II-III. State Banks since the National Bank Act. By G. B. Baenett. 50 cents. 

IV. Early History of Internal Improvements in Alabama. By W. B. Mabtin. 30 cents. 
V-VI, Trust Companies in the United States. By Geoegh Catoe. 50 cents. 
VII-VIII. The Maryland Constitution of 1851. By J. W. Haeet. 50 cents. 

IX-X. Political Activities of Philip Freneau, By S. B. Foeman. 50 cents. 

XI-XII, Continental Opinion on a Middle European Tariff Union. By G. M. Fisk. 30 cts. 

TWENTY-FIRST SERIES,— Indiana, North Carolina and Maryland.— $3.50. 

I-II. The Wabash Trade Route, By E. J. Benton. 50 cents. 

III-IV, Internal Improvements in North Carolina. By C. C. Weaver, 50 cents. 

V, History of Japanese Paper Currency, By M. Takaki. 30 cents. 

VI-VII. Economics and Politics in Maryland, 1720-1750, and the Public Services of 

Daniel Dulany the Elder, By St. G. L. Sioussat. 50 cents. 

VIII-IX-X, Beginnings of Maryland, 1631-1639, By B. C. Steinbr. 75 cents. 

XI-XII. The English Statutes in Maryland. By St. G. L. Sio0SSat. 50 cents. 

TWENTY-SECOND SERIES.— Social and Industrial History.— ^3.50. 
I-II. A Trial Bibliography of American Trade-Union Publications, 50 cents. 
III-IV, V/hite Servitude in Maryland, 1634-1820, By E. I. McCoemac. 50 cents. 
V. Switzerland at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century. By J. M. Vincent. 30 cents. 
VI-VII-VIII, The History of Reconstruction in Virginia, By H. J. Eckeneode. 50 cts. 
Lay Sermons, By Amos G. Waener. (Published as Notes Supplementary to the Studies.) 
IX-X, The Foreign Commerce of Japan since the Restoration, By Y. Hattoei. 50 cents. 
XI-XII. Descriptions of Maryland. By B. C, Steineb. 50 cents. 

TWENTY-THIRD SERIES.— Colonies, Revolution, Reconstruction.— $3.50. 

I-II. Reconstruction In South Carolina, By J. P. HOllis. 50 cents. 

III-IV. Political Conditions in Maryland, 1777-1781. By B. W. Bond, Jr. 50 cents. 

V-VI. Colonial Administration under Lord Clarendon, 1660-1667. By P. L. Kate. 50 cts, 

VII-VIII, Justice in Colonial Virginia, By O. P. Chitwood. 50 cents. 

IX-X. The Napoleonic Exiles in America, 1815-1819, By J. S. Reeves. 50 cents. 

XI-XII, Municipal Problems in Mediaeval Switzerland. By J. M, Vincent. 50 cents. 

TWENTY-FOURTH SERIES.— Diplomatic History: Trade Unions.— $3.50. 
I-II. Spanish-American Diplomatic Relations before 1898, By H. B. Flack. 50 cents. 
III-IV. The Finances of American Trade Unions. By A. M. Sakolski. 75 cents. 
V-VI. Diplomatic Negotiations of the United States with Russia, By J. C. Hildt. 50 cts. 
VII-VIII. State Rights and Parties in North Carolina, 1776-1831. By H. M. Wagstaff. 50c. 
IX-X. National Labor Federations in the United States, By Williaji Kiek. 75 cents. 
XI-XII. Maryland During the English Civil Wars. Part I, By B. C. Stbinee. 50 cents. 

TWENTY-FIFTH SERIES,— International and Colonial History,— $3,50. 
I. Internal Taxation in the Philippines. By John S. Hord. 30 cents. 
II-III. The Monroe Mission to France, 1794-1796. By B. W. Bond, Jr. 50 cents. 
IV-V. Maryland During the English Civil Wars, Part II. By Bernard C. Steinee. 50c. 
VI-VII. The State in Constitutional and International Law, By R. T. Crane. 50 cents. 
VIII-IX-X. Financial History of Maryland, 1789-1848. By Hugh S. Hanna. 75 cents. 
XI-XII. Apprenticeship in American Trade Unions. By J. M. Motley. 50 cents. 

TWENTY-SIXTH SERIES.— Administrative and Political History.— $3.50. 
I-III, British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1622- 

1675. By C. M. Andrews. 75 cents. 
IV-VI, Neutral Rights and Obligations in the Anglo-Boer War. By R. G. Camprell. 

75 cents. 
VII-VIII. The Elizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial Aspects. By 

S. L. Ware. 50 cents. 
IX-X. A Study of the Topography and Municipal History of Praeneste. My R. V. D. 

Magoffin. 50 cents. 
XI-XII, Beneficiary Features of American Trade Unions. By J. B. Kennedy. 50 cents. 

The set of twenty-sis (regular) series of Studies is offered, uniformly bound in 
cloth, for library use for $85.00 net. 

The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. 



L-EAg'09 



